MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2537104062 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2004.1403871

Using telehealth technology to improve the delivery of health services to people who are deaf

2005· article· en· W2537104062 on OpenAlexafffund
Glen Hughes, B. Hudgins, J. MacDougall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsCanadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research InstituteUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCanarie
KeywordsInterpreterTelehealthSign languageSign (mathematics)TelemedicineComputer scienceHealth careMultimediaMedical educationMedical emergencyNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of technology to access sign language interpreters from a remote location can have a significant impact on the timely access of such services for people who are deaf. The potential integration of such services is contingent on factors such as the availability of suitable equipment and the acceptance of the technological solution by people who are deaf, sign language interpreters and the health professionals. A system was assembled to address the needs of the users while maintaining focused on the requirement of the system being feasible such that it remains an option for small clinics and even medical offices. The technological solution was tested using simulated sessions involving people who are deaf, health professionals and sign language interpreters. The sessions simulated typical health conditions seen in hospital emergency rooms, medical clinics and doctor offices. Data collected from all participants indicate the technology proved to be acceptable in most simulated situations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207