A survey of the attitudes of practitioners toward teleaudiology
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
UNLABELLED: Abstract Objective: To survey hearing healthcare practitioners' (1) attitudes toward teleaudiology appointments, (2) willingness to conduct different clinical tasks via teleaudiology, and (3) willingness to conduct a teleaudiology appointment with different patient populations. DESIGN: All participants were asked to complete the Attitudes toward Teleaudiology Scale for Practitioners (ATS-P), a 46-item online survey designed for this study. STUDY SAMPLE: The responses from 202 hearing healthcare practitioners working in Canada were collected. The sample consisted of 152 audiologists, 49 hearing instrument specialists, and one who did not specify a category. RESULTS: The majority of respondents indicated that teleaudiology is likely to have a minimal effect on the quality of hearing healthcare in audiology and the quality of client-practitioner interactions, although many respondents indicated that teleaudiology would have a positive effect on accessibility to service. Nevertheless, a small minority of respondents indicated that teleaudiology would have a negative impact on quality of care in audiology. CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to use teleaudiology depended on a combination of the clinical tasks to be performed and the patient populations to be served. These findings can help guide the successful implementation of teleaudiology services.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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