MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061531220 · doi:10.3109/14992027.2014.921736

A survey of the attitudes of practitioners toward teleaudiology

2014· article· en· W2061531220 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gurjit Singh, M. Kathleen Pichora‐Fuller, Marissa Malkowski, Michael Boretzki, Stefan Launer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteEngineering Link (Canada)University Health Network
FundersMitacsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
KeywordsPing (video games)PsychologyUniversity hospitalSurvey researchRehabilitationLibrary scienceGerontologyMedia studiesMedical educationSociologyMedicineApplied psychologyFamily medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gurjit Singh*abc, M. Kathleen Pichora-Fullercde, Marissa Malkowskic, Michael Boretzkia & Stefan Launeraa *Phonak AG, Stäfa, Switzerlandb Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, Canadac Toronto Rehabilitation Institute – University Health Network, Toronto, Canadad Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Canadae Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, SwedenCorrespondence: Gurjit Singh, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, 10th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada. E-mail: g.singh@utoronto.caAbstractObjective: 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations63
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207