Attrition of U.S. Military Enlistees with Waivers for Hearing Deficiency, 1995–2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing deficiency is the condition for which accession medical waivers are most commonly granted. The retention of individuals entering service with a waiver for hearing deficiency has not been previously studied. METHODS: Military retention among new enlistees with a medical waiver for hearing deficiency was compared with that among a matched comparison group of fully qualified enlistees. Comparisons according to branch of service over the first 3 years of service were performed with the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Army subjects had significantly lower retention rates than did their fully qualified counterparts. In the adjusted model, Army and Navy enlistees with a waiver for hearing deficiency had a significantly lower likelihood of retention than did their matched counterparts. DISCUSSION: The increased likelihood of medical attrition in enlistees with a waiver for hearing loss provides no evidence to make the hearing accession standard more lenient and validates a selective hearing loss waiver policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".