Innovations in workplace accessibility and accommodation for persons with hearing loss: Using social networking and community of practice theory to promote knowledge exchange and change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread availability of assistive technology and the role of occupational therapists and audiologists in workplace health, little is known about how these groups influence the health of workers with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE: Based on a previously conducted study, this paper explores the need for networking and community of practice theory to promote knowledge sharing and use between occupational therapists, audiologists, educators, regulators, workers, and employers. METHODS: Five occupational therapists and five audiologists participated in in-depth interviews. Grounded theory was used to investigate the processes that hinder or support these professionals in addressing the accommodation needs of and workplace accessibility for workers with hearing loss. RESULTS: Constraints to addressing the needs of workers with hearing loss included: lack of knowledge about professional practice processes, lack of networking, lack of knowledge on current research, and lack of knowledge on the realm of expertise of audiologists by occupational therapists and of occupational therapists by audiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Innovations in workplace practice in hearing loss require engagement of occupational therapists, audiologists, and employers in knowledge transfer, networking, and learning. This column introduces two theories that may guide the use and development of evidence, knowledge, and expertise toward innovations in hearing work practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".