MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977087163 · doi:10.1121/1.3458853

MP3 player listening habits of 17 to 23 year old university students

2010· article· en· W1977087163 on OpenAlexafffund
Kylie McNeill, Stephen E. Keith, Katya Feder, Anne T. M. Konkle, David S. Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsActive listeningInterquartile rangeAudiologyTinnitusMedicineDuration (music)PsychologyHearing lossDemographyCommunicationAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the potential risk to hearing associated with the use of portable digital audio players. Twenty-eight university students (12 males, 16 females; aged 17-23) completed a 49-item questionnaire assessing user listening habits and subjective measures of hearing health. Sound level measurements of participants' self-identified typical and 'worst case' volume levels were taken in different classrooms with background sound levels between 43 and 52 dBA. The median frequency and duration of use was 2 h per day, 6.5 days a week. The median sound levels and interquartile ranges (IQR) at typical and 'worst case' volume settings were 71 dBA (IQR=12) and 79 dBA (IQR=9), respectively. When typical sound levels were considered with self-reported duration of daily use, none of the participants surpassed Leq(8) 85 dBA. On the questionnaire, 19 students reported experiencing at least one symptom of possible noise-induced hearing loss. Significant differences in MP3 user listening patterns were found between respondents who had experienced tinnitus and those who had not. The findings add to a growing body of literature that collectively supports a need for further research investigating MP3 player user listening habits in order to assess their potential risk to hearing health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207