MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111848293 · doi:10.1044/2015_aja-14-0067

Forum on the Brain and Hearing Aids

2015· article· en· W2111848293 on OpenAlexaff
M. Kathleen Pichora‐Fuller

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Audiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAudiologyCognitionHearing aidPsychological interventionHearing lossCognitive psychologyMedicineNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to introduce and provide an overview of the 3 articles presented in the invited forum "The Brain and Hearing Aids." METHOD: The main ideas of the articles presented by the 3 panelists are identified, and a commentary is provided to synthesize the ideas. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits from hearing aids and auditory training entail higher-level cortical and cognitive processing involved in categorizing and remembering sound. New approaches to predicting, designing, and evaluating technological and behavioral interventions will need to consider the brain and not just the ears of listeners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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