Effect of Economy and FDA Intervention on the Hearing Aid Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the economy and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) intervention on the hearing aid industry. Method: A 3-stage least squares regression technique was used to analyze the hearing aid market. Results: Our results show that, while recessionary periods reduced both demand and supply, the demand side of the hearing aid industry is significantly more responsive to changes in the economy. Further, the demand function within the hearing aid industry is inelastic. Finally, negative media coverage from nationally televised reports during the FDA's intervention between the 2nd quarter of 1993 and the 3rd quarter of 1994 did not significantly affect the market demand of hearing aids. Conclusions: The demand for hearing aids increases in a flourishing economy and decreases during periods of recession. The negative media campaign from the FDA's intervention between the 2nd quarter of 1993 and the 3rd quarter of 1994 had essentially little effect on the end user. The repercussions of the FDA's intervention have resulted, however, in a reduction in the market supply of hearing aids and an increase in their cost due to manufacturer-sponsored clinical trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".