MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Students say, despite technology, human element is key

2005· article· en· W2324042643 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Hearing Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAcademic Research and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologistElement (criminal law)Medical educationHumanismFoundation (evidence)PsychologyEngineering ethicsPedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringHearing lossLawAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All great professions are guided by the seasoned, but driven by the young. Audiology is no different. For the past decade, Oticon, Inc., has striven to do what it can to enhance the educational process for graduate students in audiology. Among other initiatives, we have hosted a camp every summer for the past 7 years in Keystone, CO. Focusing on advanced technology and clinical practice in amplification, we have supported student research and offered an audiologic lecture series at universities across the country. This year, in celebration of Oticon's 100-year anniversary, we have joined forces with the Copenhagen-based Oticon Foundation to offer scholarships to 100 graduate students in audiology. As part of the application process for these $600 awards, the students were required to write a 500-word essay in response to the question, “Why is a people-oriented profession still relevant in an increasingly technology-oriented society?” Given Oticon's People First philosophy, we were interested in seeing how the next generation of professionals view their role in an era in which hearing aid technology is evolving so rapidly. The results provide testament that the future of audiology is in the hands of talented and insightful individuals who will continue to respect our humanistic heritage. Of course, all of the applicants pointed to the importance of a strong relationship between the patient and the professional, and they agreed that technology should never be viewed as a substitute for the patient-audiologist relationship. However, a handful of students demonstrated an important insight into the role of the professional in the relationship between the professional and technology. They recognized the value that technology can offer patients with hearing loss, but also perceived that this value can only be fully realized via the intervention of the professional audiologist. HUMAN NEEDS DRIVE TECHNOLOGY Technology does not advance for its own sake. Rather, technologic advances are driven by human needs. Therefore, technology should not be viewed as de-humanizing. Quite the opposite. Technology offers the user the opportunity to reach his or her greatest potential. Or, as Rosalinda Baca of the University of Colorado said, “Society is not losing its interest in people by being technology driven; rather, technology is a key to address the increasing needs of people.” However, in our field, someone must be the link between technology and the patient. Alexandra Vetrovski of Central Michigan University noted, “Technology makes people curious. That's how it gets invented and why it continues to be used. Yet not everyone in the world is gifted in understanding…so the unknowledgeable turn to the knowledgeable.” Technologic advances continually open a broader and broader range of potential solutions. But these solutions must be tailored to the needs of the end user. The professional plays the vital role in ensuring that this takes place. Virginia Ramachandra of Wayne State University explained, “The labor-saving aspect of technology serves to enhance and highlight the people-oriented nature of the profession, while the advent of new technologies creates areas of possibility. Professionals must adapt the technology to the goals of the consumer.” “There is no doubt that technology will continue to advance our society and allow jobs to become easier and more efficient, but technology can take us only so far,” cautioned Emily Bondus of Purdue University. She added, “People have to step in and make technology understandable and usable for others. There is a value-added partnership between humans and technology [that] will continue to change our world.” As we move into the future, the role of the professional as the interface between technology and the patient should only be expected to increase. Erin McAlister of the University of Maryland put it this way: “The increasing prominence of technology in our society only enhances the need for people-oriented professions to facilitate successful relationships between human needs and the potential benefits of technology.” Our profession will continue to be challenged to produce new professionals who possess both the technical expertise to understand new technology as it is developed and the skill to unlock the potential of these new solutions for the patient. It is clear that these scholarship-winning students have been positively influenced by their professors and clinical instructors. Already they have seen that there is an important role for technology in the treatment of hearing loss, and they have also realized that the full potential of this technology can be achieved only when it is managed within a larger, patient-centered process. We congratulate these students and wish them well as they prepare to enter their professional lives. We are proud to be part of their development.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.335 · 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