MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466990164

Noise levels in adult and pediatric orthopedic cast clinics.

2011· article· en· W2466990164 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Marsh, Paul Jellicoe, Brian Black, Ronald C Monson, Tod A. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNoise (video)IrritabilityDecibelNoise exposureAudiologyHearing lossInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolonged exposure to high-intensity noise has been associated with noise-induced hearing loss, hypertension, psychological stress, and irritability. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health considers levels above 85 decibels (dB) as harmful. In the study reported here, we sought to determine whether noise levels in orthopedic cast clinics were within safe limits. A calibrated noise dosimeter was worn by cast technologists during 7 adult and 7 pediatric cast clinics, and noise levels were recorded. Mean equivalent continuous noise levels were 77.8 dB (adult clinics) and 76.5 dB (pediatric clinics), mean noise levels adjusted for an 8-hour day were 76.6 dB (adult) and 75.9 dB (pediatric), and mean peak noise levels were 140.0 dB (adult) and 140.7 dB (pediatric). Mean noise levels in cast clinics were within safe limits and there was no statistical difference in noise levels between adult and pediatric clinics. However, peak noise levels in all clinics exceeded recommended limits, and even brief exposure to noise of this intensity may be hazardous.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207