MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768270334 · doi:10.5195/ijt.2017.6234

Letter to the Editor: License Portability for Occupational Audiologists is Essential

2017· letter· en· W2768270334 on OpenAlexaff
George R. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Telerehabilitation · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureLicenseBusinessPhoneTelehealthOccupational safety and healthAdministration (probate law)Health Insurance Portability and Accountability ActHealth careMedicineMedical educationTelemedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational audiologists have a crisis in their profession and need advocates. These audiologists are primarily responsible for industrial hearing conservation programs and their compliance with multiple regulations, such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the Federal Railroad Administration. Occupational hearing programs, for the most part, are multi-state programs as companies and corporations are national organizations. Also, companies may contract services across state lines as local services may not be desired or available. Individual state telepractice regulations require audiologists who are professionally supervising these programs via the internet and phone, to secure licensure in each state. For this licensure redundancy, the cost in time and tracking are enormous. It is imperative that the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), secure multistate licensure for speech-language pathologists and audiologists. For the profession of occupational audiology, it is essential.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TelerehabilitationSame topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207