Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, there is little understanding of how contextual factors may influence the decisions individuals make regarding the adoption of options for hearing rehabilitation. This explorative retrospective study investigated whether hearing aid adoption and return rates are associated with the time of the day at which an appointment takes place. The study sample consisted of 24,842 patients experiencing their first audiology appointment. It was observed that hearing aid adoption was significantly associated with appointment times whereby lower hearing aid adoption rates were observed at noon and 4 p.m. It was also observed that hearing aid return rates were significantly associated with appointment times whereby lower return rates were observed at noon and 4 p.m. In light of the methodology employed in the study, it is not possible to unequivocally determine why time of day is associated with hearing aid adoption and return rates. Several possible explanations for the patterns of associations are discussed. In light of previous research observing that hunger lowers risk tolerance and glucose consumption increases risk tolerance, the results are consistent with an interpretation based on risk-aversion resulting from hunger. To establish causality between hunger and decision-making in audiology, additional research employing experimental methodologies are necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".