Message Transmission Efficiency Through Five Telecommunication Technologies for Signing Deaf Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional research design compares the efficiency of videoconferencing in distance communication for signing deaf persons with that of teletypewriter (TTY)-based telecommunication for the deaf. The efficiency of message transmission was evaluated among 30 signing deaf persons (18 to 65 years) under the six following experimental conditions: (a) Omnitor Allan eC software, (b) Polycom ViaVideo II software, (c) Microsoft Windows Live Messenger software, (d) the D-Link videophone, (e) TTY (written French), and (f) face to face (reference standard). Three timed intelligibility tests and a satisfaction assessment were carried out for each of the experimental conditions. Results showed that videoconferencing technologies offer a better efficacy/time ratio for communication than does TTY. Communication using videoconferencing technologies was very similar to face-to-face communication; this was also true for technologies that are not designed specifically for the deaf population. Equivalent satisfaction levels were observed between TTY and videoconferencing technologies. Microsoft Windows Live Messenger was less preferred due to image fluidity issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".