La pratique exclusive pour les audiologistes : un juste retour des choses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we have attempted to determine the acts and activities that should be reserved to the audiologists of Quebec according to the « legal context » in place in Quebec. We first described the three professions that deal with the care and the treatment of the ear and hearing: Oto-rhino-laryngolosists, audiologists and hearing aids dealers. Secondly, we compared the legal model that surrounds audiologists of Quebec with the models governing audiolgists of others Canadian provinces. Thirdly, we alborated a sphere of activity specifie to the profession of audiology . We analysed each and every act and activity using the criteria suggested by the Oflice des professions to determine the acts and activities that should be reserved to the audiologists. Finaly, we made a recommandation concerning the acts and activities to reserve within a Legal Professional Act and amendments that should be made to the existing legislation and law articles referring to « hearing »and« hearing evaluation».
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".