MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095760526

TITLE: Auditory Screening and Hearing Loss Prevention: A Review of the Clinical Evidence and Guidelines

2011· article· en· W7095760526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHearing lossPsychosocialHearing aidCongenital hearing lossNonverbal communicationUnilateral hearing loss
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of childhood hearing loss in newborns and infants has been estimated in the range of 1 to 3.47 cases per 1000 live births. 1,2 The prevalence rate across Canada is not readily available, but estimates from the province of Ontario indicate that 3 in 1000 infants suffer from permanent hearing impairment, either at birth or developing early in childhood. 3 Hearing loss in infants and children has been associated with increased difficulties with verbal and nonverbal communication, increased behavioural problems, poor academic performance, and decreased psychosocial well-being. 4,5 It is understood that the early identification of hearing loss, followed by timely and appropriate intervention, is most beneficial to children and families affected. 5,6 Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) is a recommended strategy for identifying infants born with hearing loss soon after birth, 2,5-8 but is not yet available to all Canadian newborns. 2 In

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.538
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207