MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580866843

Update on the development of test words in noise

2013· article· en· W1580866843 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Josée Lagacée, Laudia LeBlanc, V. Boisvert, Marika Joëlle Arseneau, Stéphanie Breau-Godwin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeTest (biology)Noise (video)PopulationPsychologyAudiologyComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceDemographySociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Test de Mots dans le Bruit (TMB) est une épreuve franco-canadienne de reconnaissance de mots dans le bruit enregistrée sur cédérom.Les résultats d'une étude préliminaire (Lagacé, 2010) ont montré un effet d'âge sur les performances mesurées au TMB.Cet article fait état de la progression dans le développement de données normatives au service d'audiologie du Centre hospitalier universitaire Dr-Georges-L-Dumont (Moncton, NB), auprès d'enfants (6-12 ans) et d'adultes (21-45 ans) francophones.En raison de l'effet possible des différences linguistiques régionales sur ce type d'épreuve, les performances mesurées auprès des adultes de la région de Moncton (NB) ont été comparées à celles d'adultes de la région d'Ottawa (ON).Les résultats suggèrent que le dialecte d'une population, aussi bien que l'âge, a un impact sur la capacité à reconnaitre des monosyllabes présentés dans un bruit de fond.Le développement de normes pour le TMB auprès de différents groupes d'âge et de différentes communautés francophones du Canada contribue à réduire la pénurie d'outils cliniques standardisés disponibles pour cette population.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207