MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281728486 · doi:10.3389/frym.2022.708921

What Makes Human Hearing Special?

2022· article· en· W4281728486 on OpenAlexaff
Christian J. Sumner, Christopher Bergevin, Andrew J. Oxenham, Christopher A. Shera

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsQUIETHuman earAudiologyRange (aeronautics)AcousticsCommunicationSpeech recognitionPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans and many other animals can hear a wide range of sounds. We can hear low and high notes and both quiet and loud sounds. We are also very good at telling the difference between sounds that are similar, like the speech sounds “argh” and “ah,” and picking apart sounds that are mixed together, like when an orchestra is playing. But how do human hearing abilities compare to those of other animals? In this article, we discover how the inner ear determines hearing abilities. Many other mammals can hear very high notes that we cannot, and some can hear quiet sounds that we cannot. However, humans may be better than any other species at distinguishing similar sounds. We know this because, milliseconds after the sounds around us go into our ears, other sounds come out : sounds that are actually produced by those same ears!

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers for Young MindsSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207