Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use
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.SumarioEste trabajo reporta las preferencias de los niños en el mundo real, en un estudio cruzado, doble-ciego que compara las prescripciones NAL-NL1 y DSL v4.1. Veinticuatro niños de dos sitios (Australia, Canada) utilizaron auxiliares auditivos digitales con WDRC. Los auxiliares auditivos con multi-memoria contaban con los programas NAL y DSL en dos de sus memorias. Se completaron diarios durante dos ensayos balanceados que proporcionaban información sobre la prefer-encia general, la preferencia situacional y comentarios sobre la preferencia. Las puntuaciones fueron confiables y la preferencia situacional se clasificaron en situación silente/nivel bajo versus situación ruidosa/reverberante/nivel alto. Los niños de ambos lugares utilizaron DSL v4.1 para escuchar el habla a intensidad baja o cuando querían escuchar alto y claro. Los niños expresaron una fuerte preferencia por poder tener la opción de ambos programas. Los niños canadienses tendieron a preferir DSL más que los niños australianos. Factores como el ambiente sonoro y las experiencias auditivas previas se discuten y se interpretan los hallazgos.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".