MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333313840 · doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3182536ae2

European Bilateral Pediatric Cochlear Implant Forum Consensus Statement

2012· article· en· W2333313840 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Ramsden, Karen A. Gordon, Antje Aschendorff, Łukasz Borucki, Marie Bunne, Sandro Burdo, N Garabédian, Wilko Grolman, Richard Irving, Anke Lesinski‐Schiedat, Natalie Loundon, Manuel Manrique, Jane Martin, Chris Raine, Jan Wouters, Blake C. Papsin

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCandidacyCochlear implantCochlear implantationStatement (logic)AudiologyConsensus conferenceImplantSurgeryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a consensus statement on pediatric cochlear implantation by the European Bilateral Pediatric Cochlear Implant Forum. The consensus statement was determined by review of current scientific literature to identify areas of scientific and clinical agreement of current understanding of bilateral cochlear implantation. The statement is "Currently we feel that the infant or child with unambiguous cochlear implant candidacy should receive bilateral cochlear implants simultaneously as soon as possible after definitive diagnosis of deafness to permit optimal auditory development; an atraumatic surgical technique designed to preserve cochlear function, minimize cochlear damage, and allow easy, possibly repeated re-implantation is recommended."

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0120.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations113
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207