MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015191204 · doi:10.3109/14992020209077179

The educational settings of profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants compared with age-matched peers with hearing aids: implications for management: Las condiciones educativos de los sordos profundos con implantes cocleares en comparación con niños de la misma edad con auxiliar auditivo: implicaciones terapéuticas

2002· article· es· W2015191204 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamAudiologyCochlear implantationMedicineHearing lossPsychologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The educational settings of 42 implanted profoundly deaf children 3 years after implantation were compared with the respective settings of 635 age-matched severely deaf and 511 profoundly deaf children with hearing aids. All implanted children received their implants before beginning school. The results revealed that 3 years after implantation. 38% (16 children) of the implanted profoundly deaf children attended mainstream schools, whereas 57% (24 children) were in a unit, or special class, in a mainstream school, and 5% (two children) were in schools for the deaf. With regard to the age-matched profoundly deaf children with hearing aids, 12% (63 children) attended mainstream schools, whereas 55% (281 children) were in a unit of a mainstream school, and 33% (167 children) were in schools for the deaf. In the group of age-matched severely deaf children, 38% (239 children) attended mainstream schools, whereas 51% (326 children) were in a unit of a mainstream school, and 11% (70 children) were in schools for the deaf. Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference between the educational placement of implanted children and hearing-aided profoundly deaf children (p<0.00001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference between implanted children and hearing-aided severely deaf children. In conclusion, implanted profoundly deaf children who have received their implants before beginning school have the same profile of educational placement as aided severely deaf children rather than aided profoundly deaf children of the same age in the UK. This is likely to have significant implications for the future management of profoundly deaf children and to influence future planning of educational support services.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.334 · 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