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
Recordings were made at the beginning and end of workdays of teachers who experience vocal fatigue (n = 22) and those who do not experience fatigue (n = 17). Those who experienced fatigue were recorded on days in which they did and did not fatigue. Both groups evaluated their vocal characteristics, each time they made a recording. Subsequently, a listener panel evaluated the same characteristics from the recordings. Both groups estimated the amount and characteristics of their talking time, completed a psychological evaluation and provided medical histories. The authors interpret the data obtained as indicating that the vocal characteristics of teachers who fatigue and those who do not fatigue are similar on days the former group does not fatigue and that the two groups are similar in the amount and loudness of their talking time, at work and at home. However, teachers who fatigue tend to spend more time in activities that appear to be vocally demanding and are more likely to perceive situations as being anxiety producing. Teachers who fatigue tend to be in good health, but have had more hearing problems and allergies than their colleagues and more of their family members have had voice problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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