Increase in use of protective earplugs by Rock and Roll concert attendees when provided for free at concert venues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of hearing protection use among attendees of Rock and Roll concerts at baseline and in concerts where earplugs are provided for free at concert venue entrances. DESIGN: Six concerts performed at two music venues in Toronto, Canada were evaluated. Study personnel observed and recorded the use of hearing protection at three concerts where no earplugs were distributed, and three concerts where earplugs were provided for free at the concert venue entrance. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 955 individuals over the age of 18 were observed at six concerts. Six hundred and thirty-seven individuals (64% male) were observed at concerts where no earplugs were provided, and 318 individuals (68% male) were observed at concerts where free earplugs were provided. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated a significant increase in hearing protection usage at concerts where earplugs were provided for free at the concert venue entrance, odds ratio 7.27 (95% CI: 3.24-16.30). CONCLUSION: The provision of free earplugs at concert venues may be a simple and inexpensive intervention that could be a component of a larger public health campaign to prevent non-occupational noise-induced hearing loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".