MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479105335 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1584406

Relevance of the International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability: Children & Youth Version in Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs

2016· review· en· W2479105335 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Moodie, Marlene Bagatto

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Hearing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthRelevance (law)Intervention (counseling)Hearing lossPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Foundation (evidence)Developmental psychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatryAudiologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) programs have been guided by principles from the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing and an international consensus of best practice principles for family-centered early intervention. Both resources provide a solid foundation from which to design, implement, and sustain a high-quality, family-centered EHDI program. As a result, infants born with permanent hearing loss and their families will have the support they need to develop communication skills. These families also will benefit from programs that align with the framework offered by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children & Youth Version (ICF-CY). Within this framework, health and functioning is defined and measured by describing the consequences of the health condition (i.e., hearing loss) in terms of body function, structures, activity, and participation as well as social aspects of the child. This article describes the relevance of the ICF-CY for EHDI programs and offers a modified approach by including aspects of quality of life and human development across time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207