From Healthy Hearing to Healthy Living: A Holistic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The negative consequences of hearing loss go beyond difficulties with communication, having been identified as a major risk factor for injury and illness, social isolation, depression, overall quality of life, and mortality. Hearing loss affects the individual, their families and social network, the broader healthcare system, and the economy. Recognizing that there are multifactorial considerations associated with understanding and mitigating the consequences of hearing loss, great benefit is gained by taking an interdisciplinary, interprofessional, holistic approach to studying hearing loss in research and in developing holistic clinical strategies targeted at prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and social policy. Within the framework of this supplement focused on the role of ecological validity in hearing-related research and application, this article provides a general commentary on how ecological validity can be considered with a holistic perspective in mind. First, we consider how a holistic approach can be applied within clinical practice, how it can be applied to laboratory-based research to increase ecological validity, and how it can be applied to professional training and education within both research and clinical domains. Second, we discuss the associations between hearing loss and dementia as an example of how these holistic principles can be applied. The main goal of highlighting these approaches and principles is to motivate a change in the narrative about hearing loss from a focus in research and application on promoting healthy hearing, to a focus on living well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".