MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271519546 · doi:10.1093/deafed/env047

Children With Mild Bilateral and Unilateral Hearing Loss: Parents’ Reflections on Experiences and Outcomes: Table 1.

2015· article· en· W2271519546 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth M. Fitzpatrick, Viviane Grandpierre, Andrée Durieux-Smith, Isabelle Gaboury, Doug Coyle, Eunjung Na, Nusaiba Sallam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHearing lossPsychologyAudiologyInterquartile rangeUnilateral hearing lossDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with mild bilateral and unilateral hearing loss are now commonly identified early through newborn hearing screening initiatives. There remains considerable uncertainty about how to support parents and about which services to provide for children with mild bilateral and unilateral hearing loss. The goal of this study was to learn about parents' experiences and understand, from their perspectives, the impact of hearing loss in the mild range on the child's functioning. Parents of 20 children in Ontario, Canada, participated in the study. The median age of identification of hearing loss was 4.6 months (interquartile range: 3.6, 10.8). Parents appreciated learning early about hearing loss, but their experiences with the early process were mixed. Parents felt that professionals minimized the importance of milder hearing loss. There was substantial uncertainty about the need for hearing aids and the findings suggest that parents need specific guidance. Parents expressed concerns about the potential impact of hearing loss on their child's development, particularly at later ages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207