Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian military instituted a hearing conservation program over 45 yr ago. Yet the prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss is escalating. A focus group study involving four combat arms occupations was carried out to probe individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors relating to hearing loss prevention to find ways to improve compliance. METHODS: One group each of 4-5 Infantry Soldiers, Artillerymen, Armored Soldiers, and Combat Engineers, with the rank of Warrant Officer, Sergeant, or Master Corporal, and at least 5 yr of service participated. Discussions were led by a Moderator and recorded by an Assistant Moderator. Questions posed related to susceptibility and consequences of hearing loss, benefits and drawback of hearing protection, and preferences. RESULTS: Age range was 28-48 yr and length of service 10-30 yr. Individuals were exposed to noise from weapons, explosives, vehicles, and aircraft. Infantry Soldiers and Artillerymen had confirmed moderate to severe hearing loss. Armored Soldiers and Combat Engineers had not perceived a change in hearing. Main concerns of using hearing protection were interference with detection and localization of auditory warnings, and perception of orders. Devices were often incompatible with other gear and difficult to fit. DISCUSSION: Good hearing was critical to the occupations studied. Difference in hearing loss among groups was related to type and level of noise exposure. Loss of hearing and/or the use of hearing protection compromised situational awareness, exchange of information, and auditory task performance. Participants favored opportunities to try recommended devices, policies governing use, and sufficient funding to ensure protection for both regular and special forces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".