Towards a Social Psychology of Living With Acquired Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigmatized social identity can create psychological barriers to the effective delivery of hearing services for people with acquired hearing loss.These barriers can lead to denial and inhibit clients from accepting the help they need, even if this denial poses disadvantages to their well-being.To overcome these barriers, services are needed that address identity-related issues along with strategies that specifically address stigma.Acquired hearing loss can disrupt existing interpersonal social relations and threaten social identity and status.Efforts to change group norms within a client's immediate social network can provide the social support and practical solutions needed to minimize distress and help create a pool of people who are capable of mobilizing in the interests of broader destigmatization and social change.From the perspective of social psychology and social identity theory, the outreach strategy in the audiologic rehabilitation program originally described by Raymond Hétu and colleague Louise Getty (Getty & Hétu, 1991; Hétu & Getty, 1991), referred to herein as the Montreal Model, offers clinicians an effective psychosocial strategy for engaging clients and significant others in a useful change process.Humans are social beings who do not experience hearing-related communication problems in a social vacuum (Hogan, 2001).Hearing-related communication problems can result in the stigmatization of the person with hearing loss (Gagné, Southall, & Jennings, 2009;Hallberg & Carlsson, 1991;Hétu, 1996).As Giddens (1984) observed, stigma arises when an individual is deemed socially incompetent-in the context of hearing impairment, because he or she cannot follow the customary social rules of speaking, listening, and responding appropriately.People with hearing loss often attempt to manage stigma by avoiding practices and behaviors that would marginalize or delegitimize them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".