MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2415226787

[Experiences from the county of Norrbotten: screening of hearing at the age of four crucial for detecting mild hearing impairment].

2001· article· en· W2415226787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L Hedendahl, S Lindholm, G Westman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the eighties the formerly well established hearing screening performed at the age of four has been debated, partly for economic reasons. One quarter of Sweden's counties have since then abolished it. But how many children do we detect by this screening? What significance does it have for a child that those around it are aware of a mild hearing impairment? In Norrbotten, in all, we found 123 children born 1989-1992 with a hearing impairment. The prevalence was 7.9 per thousand. 30 percent of the children were detected at the 4-years hearing screening, and of these 0.9/1,000 had a hearing impairment that was bilateral, 1.0/1,000 unilateral and 0.5/1,000 impairment only in the high frequencies. Also children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing impairment can experience difficulties in school and among friends, especially in noisy surroundings, and benefit by knowing early about their hearing impairment.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→