Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hearing impairment in older adulthood puts people at risk of communication difficulties, disengagement from listening, and social withdrawal. Here, we develop a model of listening engagement (MoLE) that provides a conceptual foundation to understand when people engage in listening and why some people disengage. We use the term “listening engagement” to describe the recruitment of executive and other cognitive resources in the service of a valued communication goal. Listening engagement, listening motivation, and listening experiences are closely interconnected: motivation and other factors determine the degree to which resources are recruited during listening, which in turn influences subjective listening experiences such as enjoyment, effort, frustration, and boredom. We anticipate that this model will help researchers assess more accurately whether a person with hearing difficulties is at risk of disengagement and social withdrawal. It is further useful to more comprehensively characterize a person’s listening experiences in laboratory settings when rich, engaging stimulus materials, such as spoken stories, are used. We hope this model will allow new questions in applied and basic hearing science and auditory cognitive neuroscience to be asked and answered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".