MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313379578 · doi:10.1111/acem.14652

Hot off the press: <scp>SGEM</scp>#383: Tommy can you hear me—Deaf and hard‐of‐hearing patients in the ED

2023· article· en· W4313379578 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Heitz, Kirsty Challen, William K. Milne

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAudiologyEmergency departmentHearing lossPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients who are deaf and hard of hearing may have difficulty accessing healthcare resources when compared with non-deaf or hard of hearing patients. Little research has been performed investigating in what ways these difficulties manifest. This article summarizes the podcast and blog discussing the manuscript by James et al. in which deaf and hard of hearing patients are compared to non-deaf and hard of hearing patients when it comes to acuity, length of stay, and emergency department revisits. Social media commentary is included.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2470.104

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207