Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Cochlea wave propagation…” These words started off David Kemp's seminal 1978 contribution to auditory biophysics, where he first described “a new auditory phenomenon” [JASA 64(5):1386-1391]. The impact of this report has transcended numerous disciplines, finding an impressive range of scientific and clinical applications (e.g., monitoring cochlear status to ototoxicity, biophysical models of the cochlea, pediatric hearing screening). One area where this is most readily apparent is the “comparative“ one: It appears that animals all across the phylogenetic tree exhibit robust OAE activity. Given broad morphological differences (e.g., cochlear length, presence/absence of a flexible basilar membrane and/or stereovillar hair cells), a comparative otoacoustic approach offers remarkable potential for identifying universal biophysical principles at play. This talk will compare/contrast OAE properties (and the associated implications) across a broad range of groups such as: humans, birds, frogs, lizards, ferrets, non-human primates, tigers, and even insects. Furthermore, by examining OAEs in species where the traditional basilar membrane traveling wave is absent (e.g., reptiles), we stand to gain biophysical insight into the precise role of “wave propagation.” Taken together, the enormous impact the otoacoustic approach has had towards understanding the biomechanics of the inner ear speaks to the truly profound nature of the “Kempian“ discovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".