MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311363641 · doi:10.7205/milmed.171.10.976

Auditory Perception with Ear and Cold Weather Face Protection Worn in Combination

2006· article· en· W2311363641 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon M. Abel, Patricia Odell

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyHearing protectionCold weatherMedicineHearing lossAttenuationConsonantAcoustic attenuationQUIETAcousticsAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsSpeech recognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects on hearing thresholds, sound attenuation, and consonant discrimination of wearing a balaclava under hearing-protecting earmuffs were studied. This combination is commonly worn during cold weather military operations. One group of 20 normal-hearing adults (10 male and 10 female subjects) was tested. Within-subject measurements were made of diffuse-field hearing thresholds from 0.25 kHz to 8 kHz and consonant discrimination in quiet with the ears unoccluded and protected with the earmuffs alone and with the balaclava worn full face or rolled. Attenuation was derived from the protected and unoccluded thresholds at each frequency. When the balaclava was worn full face, attenuation decreased by 16 to 18 dB, relative to the muff alone, below 6.3 kHz. With the balaclava worn as a cap, there was an inverted U-shaped decrement in attenuation of 18 to 27 dB from 0.25 Hz to 4 kHz. Consonant discrimination decreased by 7% with the muffs alone. These findings underscore the importance of assessing protective equipment under the conditions in which it will be worn.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207