The standpoint of persons with hearing loss on work disparities and workplace accommodations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The perspectives of persons who live and work with hearing loss were sought to examine workplace accommodation challenges and strategies. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of seven older adults with hearing loss participated in in-depth interviews. METHODS: A systematic grounded theory approach informed the study design and analysis. Categories of facilitators and challenges in the data were identified through axial coding and clustering. Core categories of social processes emerged through constant comparison and theoretical sampling of the data to reveal the actions and interactions used to negotiate or implement adaptations or workplace accommodations. RESULTS: Persons with hearing loss use a realm of strategies to live and work with a hearing loss. Social processes used to navigate the challenges to working with hearing loss and to manage optimal work performance included: self-accommodation, self-advocacy, self-management of hearing loss, and lobbying. CONCLUSIONS: Success in overcoming work disparities for persons with hearing loss requires individuals to take control of identifying their needs within the workplace and at home, and to negotiate for specific accommodations. These strategies and processes draw attention to the need for a repository on contextualized workplace accommodation strategies for improving communication and hearing in the workplace. Further to this a best practice guide for use by workers, employers, and work rehabilitation and health care workers is indicated.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it