MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346655930 · doi:10.1121/1.4950254

Gender differences and speech accommodation in occupational settings

2016· article· en· W2346655930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric J. Hunter, Sarah Hargus Ferguson, Tim Leishman, Lynn Maxfield, Simone Graetzer, Pasquale Bottalico

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationWorkforcePresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Quality (philosophy)Employee voiceApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly one quarter of the U.S. workforce depends on a healthy, versatile voice as a tool for their profession. These are individuals who, lose voice quality and/or vocal endurance, would not be able to perform their job effectively. These occupational voice users include professionals such as teachers, counselors, emergency dispatchers, air traffic controllers, performers, and telephone workers. Women tend to have a disproportionate incidence of reported voice problems compared to men. They also make up the majority of several of these high voice-use occupations (e.g., public school teachers, call center workers). This presentation will provide an overview of our current understanding of gender discrepancy in vocal health issues as well as a discussion of recent results identifying underlying causes, which may contribute to their heightened risk. Such results include compensatory adjustments women use in different communication environments, speech accommodation to stress, and the relationship between vocal fatigue and pulmonary function.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207