Constructions of ‘sound’ in scientific discourses about cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linguistic resources employed to discuss sensory experiences and phenomena can vary considerably between different cultural, disciplinary and socio-political contexts. Whilst questions about the discourses of sound have long been explored in some fields, within the field of cochlear implant research, such questions have received limited attention. This article draws together literature from diverse fields, highlighting the various complexities inherent in talking about “sound” in different contexts. The results of a collocation analysis of “sound” within the CIRCorpus - (a purpose-built 3-million-word corpus comprised of scientific research articles about cochlear implants published between 1960 and 2024) are then reported. The collocation analysis highlights a discursive environment in which sound is predominantly framed within a language of testing and abilit y, suggesting that discussions of sound within CI research have become distinctly psychologized and increasingly technicalized and homogenized over time. The implications of these patterns for informing future CI research agendas are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".