Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past four decades, there has been increasing interest in the effects of music listening on hearing. The purpose of this paper is to review published studies that detail the noise levels, the potential effects (e.g. noise-induced hearing loss), and the perceptions of those affected by music exposure in occupational and non-occupational settings. The review employed Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO, and the World Wide Web to find relevant studies in the scientific literature. Considered in this review are 43 studies concerning the currently most significant occupational sources of high-intensity music: rock and pop music playing and employment at music venues, as well as the most significant sources of non-occupational high-intensity music: concerts, dicotheques (clubs), and personal music players. Although all of the activities listed above have the potential for hearing damage, the most serious threat to hearing comes from prolonged exposures to amplified live music (concerts). The review concludes that more research is needed to clarify the hearing loss risks of music exposure from personal music players and that current scientific literature clearly recognizes an unmet hearing health need for more education regarding the risks of loud music exposure and the benefits of wearing hearing protection, for more hearing protection use by those at risk, and for more regulations limiting music intensity levels at music entertainment venues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".