Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use
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
This paper reports real world preferences of children in a double-blind, cross-over trial comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v.4.1 prescriptions. Twenty-four children wore digital WDRC hearing aids at each site (Australia, Canada). Multi-memory hearing aids provided the NAL and DSL programs in each of two memories. Diaries were completed during two counterbalanced trials, providing overall preference, situational preference, and preference comments. Ratings were reliable, and situational preferences factored into quiet/low level situations versus noisy/reverberant/high level situations. Children at both sites used DSL v4.1 for hearing low level speech, or when they wanted to hear loudly and clearly. Children used NAL-NL1 when they wished to hear sounds at a lower level, or to reduce background noise. Children expressed strong preferences for having the choice of both programs. Canadian children were more likely to prefer DSL than were the Australian children. Factors such as listening environment and prior listening experience are discussed in interpreting these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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