MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016069863 · doi:10.3109/14992020903080751

Protocol for the provision of amplification within the Ontario Infant hearing program

2010· article· en· W2016069863 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marlene Bagatto, Susan Scollie, M. L. Hyde, Richard C. Seewald

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyProtocol (science)MedicineHearing lossHearing aidPediatricsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document describes the protocol for the provision of amplification to infants and preschool children registered with the Ontario infant hearing program (OIHP) in Canada. The provision of amplification includes the prescription and dispensing of hearing instruments to infants and preschool children identified with permanent childhood hearing impairment (PCHI) in the province of Ontario. The first section deals with the structure and processes of the program, while the second section specifies the clinical procedures that are applied in providing hearing instruments to infants and young children with hearing impairment.SumarioEste documento describe el protocolo para el suministro de amplificación a niños y preescolares registrados en el programa de audición infantil de Ontario (OIHP) en Canadá. El suministro de amplificación incluye la prescripción y entrega de instrumentos auditivos a niños y a preescolares identificados con discapacidad infantil auditiva permanente (PCHI) en la provincia de Ontario. La primera sección trata sobre la estructura y los procesos del programa, mientras que la segunda sección, especifica los procedimientos clínicos que se aplican para suministrar instrumentos auditivos a bebes y ninos pequeños con discapacidad auditiva.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.021

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations84
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207