The Development of ICF Core Sets for Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001, offers a framework for a comprehensive understanding of health. One of the main goals of the ICF is to provide a conceptual framework of health that can be applied both for research purposes and in clinical settings. In order to promote the use of the ICF in clinical settings, the WHO initiated the Core Sets project. Core Sets, targeting a specific health condition, consist of a set of ICF categories that can serve as minimal standards (Brief ICF Core Set) or as standards for comprehensive assessment (Comprehensive ICF Core Set). In 2009, a process of developing ICF Core Sets for Hearing Loss was initiated. This process involves three phases of development. In the first phase, four scientific studies are conducted to collect evidence for relevant ICF categories to be used in the Core Sets. In phase two, a consensus conference is held to establish relevant ICF categories, and in the third phase, the Core Sets that are retained are tested and validated. This paper describes the process of developing ICF Core Sets for Hearing Loss as well as an invitation to participate in the project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.227 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".