Personal listening device usage among Canadians and audiometric outcomes among 6–29 year olds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe personal listening device (PLD) usage and sociodemographic variables among a nationally representative sample of Canadians and examine audiometric outcomes among a subsample.Design Audiometry and in-person questionnaires were used to evaluate hearing and PLD usage across age, sex, household income/education level. PLD exposure was quantified using a common occupational noise limit.Study sample A randomised sample of 10,460 respondents, aged 6–79, with audiometric analysis of a subsample (n = 4807), aged 6–29, tested between 2012 and 2015.Results Loud PLD usage was reported by19.5% of Canadians. The highest prevalence was among teenagers (44.2%) and young adults (36.3%). Among children, 13.1% of users listened at loud volumes. High PLD usage (equivalent to or above 85 dBA, LEX 40) among 12–19 year olds was double that of 20–29 year olds: 10.2% versus 5.1%E. Five years or more of loud PLD usage was associated with significantly higher mean hearing thresholds compared to less years. No association between loud or high PLD usage and mean thresholds were found.Conclusion The majority used PLDs safely, however a small proportion reported high risk usage which will impact hearing should this pattern persist over many 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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it