MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2048804725 · doi:10.1121/1.4788072

Noise in Canadian hospital operating rooms

2006· article· en· W2048804725 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ted Haines, Bernadette Stringer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryNeurosurgeryMedicineNoise levelNoise (video)Sound level meterSurgeryAudiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noise levels in hospital operating rooms have not been well characterized. Therefore, noise levels were measured using a sound level meter in a sample of surgeries included in a multihospital intervention study, assessing the effectiveness of a recommended work practice to decrease occupational exposure to blood during surgery. The duration of the measurements ranged from 15 min to several hours. Among types of surgery for which at least four measurements were done, the Leq for orthopedic surgery was the highest at 70.1 dB(A) (range 60.8–75.1), followed by 63.7 dB(A) for neurosurgery (range 57.4–68.1), and 62.8 dB(A) (range 58.5–70.3), for general surgery. Gynecological surgery had the lowest Leq, 60.8 dB(A) (range 56.5–62.5). Peak levels were found to be as high as 132.8 and 132.6 dB(A), in general and orthopedic surgery, respectively, and lowest in neurosurgery at 102.6 dB(A). These noise levels are consistent with those from a comprehensive U.S. study, and substantially exceed EPAs recommended level of 45 dB(A) for hospitals. [Work funded by Ontarios Workplace Safety Insurance Board.]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→