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
Frequency lowering technologies offer an alternative amplification solution for severe to profound high frequency hearing losses. While frequency lowering technologies may improve audibility of high frequency sounds, the very nature of this processing can affect the perceived sound quality. This article reports the results from two studies that investigated the impact of a nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) algorithm on perceived sound quality. In the first study, the cutoff frequency and compression ratio parameters of the NFC algorithm were varied, and their effect on the speech quality was measured subjectively with 12 normal hearing adults, 12 normal hearing children, 13 hearing impaired adults, and 9 hearing impaired children. In the second study, 12 normal hearing and 8 hearing impaired adult listeners rated the quality of speech in quiet, speech in noise, and music after processing with a different set of NFC parameters. Results showed that the cutoff frequency parameter had more impact on sound quality ratings than the compression ratio, and that the hearing impaired adults were more tolerant to increased frequency compression than normal hearing adults. No statistically significant differences were found in the sound quality ratings of speech-in-noise and music stimuli processed through various NFC settings by hearing impaired listeners. These findings suggest that there may be an acceptable range of NFC settings for hearing impaired individuals where sound quality is not adversely affected. These results may assist an Audiologist in clinical NFC hearing aid fittings for achieving a balance between high frequency audibility and sound quality.
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