Predicting speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-critical jobs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many jobs require auditory abilities such as speech communication, sound localization, and sound detection. An employee for whom these abilities are impaired may constitute a safety risk for himself or herself, for fellow workers, and possibly for the general public. A number of methods have been used to predict these abilities from diagnostic measures of hearing (e.g., the pure-tone audiogram); however, these methods have not proved to be sufficiently accurate for predicting performance in the noise environments where hearing-critical jobs are performed. We have taken an alternative and potentially more accurate approach. A direct measure of speech intelligibility in noise, the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), is instead used to screen individuals. The screening criteria are validated by establishing the empirical relationship between the HINT score and the auditory abilities of the individual, as measured in laboratory recreations of real-world workplace noise environments. The psychometric properties of the HINT enable screening of individuals with an acceptable amount of error. In this presentation, we will describe the predictive model and report the results of field measurements and laboratory studies used to provide empirical validation of the model. [Work supported by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.]
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".