MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057801174 · doi:10.1121/1.3689550

Audiometric thresholds among a Canadian sample of 10 to 17 year old students

2012· article· en· W2057801174 on OpenAlexaffabout
André Marcoux, Katya Feder, Stephen E. Keith, Leonora Marro, Marianne E. James, David S. Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyHeadphonesTympanometryAudiometryTinnitusHearing lossPure tone audiometryMedicinePure tonePsychologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 237 students, 10 to 17 years of age, from 14 schools underwent hearing evaluations. Otoscopic examination, tympanometry and air-conduction pure tone audiometry was conducted at low (0.5, 1, 2 kHz) and high (4 and 8 kHz) frequencies. In all schools, hearing thresholds were measured with headphones in a portable audiometric booth. Socio-demographic information from students and their parents were collected using questionnaires. Overall, the prevalence of any hearing loss greater than 15 dB was 22.3% for low or high frequency pure tone averages. Self-reported symptoms of hearing loss, such as tinnitus, difficulty following a conversation with background noise, and having to turn up the TV/radio more than in the past, were associated with audiometric thresholds, most notably at 4 kHz. These study findings are among the first to provide a detailed characterization of hearing status in a sample of youth in a Canadian demographic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207