Searching for Cochlear Implant Information on the Internet Maze: Implications for Parents and Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study has three purposes: (a) to determine who disseminates information on cochlear implants on the Web; (b) to describe a representative sample of Web sites that disseminate information on cochlear implants, with a focus on the content topics and their relevance to parents of deaf children; and (c) to discuss the practical issues of Web-based information and its implications for professionals working with parents of deaf children. Using the terms "cochlear implants" and "children," the first 10 sites generated by the four most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN, and America Online) at two points in time were selected for analysis, resulting in a sample of 31 Web sites. The majority of Web sites represented medically oriented academic departments and government organizations, although a wide variety of other sources containing information about cochlear implants were also located. Qualitative analysis revealed that the content tended to fall into eight categories; however, the important issues of educational concerns, habilitation following surgery, and communication methods were either addressed minimally or neglected completely. Using analytical tools that had been developed to evaluate "user friendliness" in other domains, each Web site was assessed for its stability, service/design features and ease of use. In general, wide variability was noted across the Web sites for each of these factors. The strong recommendation is made that professionals understand and enhance their knowledge of both the advantages and limitations of incorporating the new technology into their work with parents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".