Parents’ perspectives on the impact of the early diagnosis of childhood hearing loss
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
Newborn hearing screening has been widely implemented to improve outcomes for children with permanent hearing loss. This study examined benefits beyond those typically measured clinically, by exploring parents' perceptions of the effects of early/late identification of hearing loss. The parents of 17 children in Ontario, Canada, participated in the study. Seven children were identified through systematic screening and ten through traditional referral practices. All children were in oral rehabilitation programs. The study adopted a qualitative approach, examining parent's views through individual interviews. Purposive sampling was used to select a diverse group of parents to allow a broad range of perspectives to emerge. Benefits of early identification included improved communication development and early access to hearing. Negative aspects of late identification included regret for the family and family stress around the child's language gap. Although, screening programs may offer a seamless transition to audiology services, the transition to intervention services appeared less fluid for some families. Overall, parents strongly support infant hearing screening and identify benefits that are not easily quantifiable through traditional clinical measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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