Factors that influence the use of assistance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe and better understand the factors that influence the use of assistance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss. We were interested in adopting a methodological approach that would provide an in-depth account of individual experiences related to the use of these technologies. A qualitative research design was therefore selected. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with ten individuals who were 65 years of age or older and were current successful assistance technology users. Thematic analysis was used to draw meaning from the interview transcripts. The results suggest that successful use of these assistance technologies involves the recognition of hearing difficulties, an awareness that technological solutions exist, consultation for and acquisition of devices, and adapting to device use and modified behaviour. These four landmarks seem to be crucial stages when people either move toward successful assistance technology use or are discouraged from assistance technology use. Based on these results, a representative model of assistance technology awareness, acquisition and utilization is proposed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it