Can operating room nurses accurately classify noise exposures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worker’s qualitative chemical exposure estimates when compared to estimates made by experts or with monitoring devices have been found to be accurate. But almost no research exists on worker’s ability to classify noise exposure. This investigation took place within a multi-hospital intervention study in which OR nurses completed a questionnaire at the end of each surgery and answered, ‘‘During this surgery could you easily hear: quiet talking, normal talking, or loud talking?’’ In 255 surgeries, noise was measured using a sound level meter, for a minimum of 15 min, while in 68 surgeries noise was measured for >70% of the surgery. In the 255 surgeries in which noise was measured for 15 min or >, it was found that nurses who heard quiet talking were exposed to 62.8 dB(A) and that nurses who heard normal or loud talking were exposed to 65.1 dB(A), a difference that was statistically significant (p=0.019). In the 68 surgeries where noise measurements lasted more than 70% of the surgery, nurses who heard quiet talking were exposed to 64.0 dB(A), while nurses who heard normal or loud talking were exposed to 67.3 dB(A), a difference that was borderline significant (p=0.07). Nurses can distinguish between noise that interferes with quiet talking during surgery and noise that does not. [Work funded by Ontarios Workplace Safety Insurance Board.]
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".