Factors that influence disclosure of hearing loss in the workplace
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
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to identify factors that lead individuals to conceal or disclose their hearing loss in the workplace. DESIGN: A qualitative research paradigm called qualitative description was selected to address this issue. STUDY SAMPLE: Twelve people who had an adult onset hearing loss, and were gainfully employed, participated in audio-recorded semi-structured interviews designed to probe issues related to disclosure of hearing loss. A photo elicitation interview technique was employed during the interviews. Content analyses were used to extract pertinent information from verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Five recurring themes emerged as important considerations in relation to this topic: (1) perceived importance of the situation; (2) perceived sense of control; (3) community affiliation; (4) burden of communication; and (5) coexisting issues related to hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are discussed in relation to other concealable stigmatizing traits, stigma-theory, and social-cognitive theory. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed, with particular emphasis placed on worker self-efficacy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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