Prevalence of loud leisure noise activities among a representative sample of Canadians aged 6–79 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This population-based study estimates the prevalence of loud leisure noise exposure and hearing protection usage among Canadians, as well as the population potentially at-risk using an occupational limit of 85 dBA, LEX 40 h, which denotes a typical occupational noise limit for a 40 hour work week. A total of 10 460 participants, aged 6–79 years, completed a Canadian Health Measures Survey household questionnaire. Loud leisure noise was defined by vocal effort required while communicating at arm's length except for loud personal listening device (PLD) usage with earbuds/headphones, which included both volume setting and vocal effort. The most prevalent loud leisure noise activities were amplified music, car/home stereo listening, and power tools, with 40% reporting each source, followed by sporting/entertainment (25%), gasoline engines (23%), and loud PLD listening (19.5%). Loud leisure noise was more prevalent among 12–39 year olds and males. Hearing protection usage was uncommon, from 44.2% (firearms) to 20.3% (power tools) and below 3% during amplified music and sporting/entertainment events. Calculations using self-reported duration of loud leisure noise activities estimated that 6.6 × 106 Canadians were in the high cumulative noise exposure category. A large proportion of Canadians would be expected to develop some degree of noise-induced hearing loss should this pattern persist over years.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".