MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480177732

Acoustical Challenges in Long Term Care Facilities

2012· article· en· W1480177732 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zohreh Razavi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScreamingResidenceLong-term careSound (geography)Intelligibility (philosophy)Separation (statistics)DementiaTerm (time)DoorsArchitectural engineeringAcousticsMedical emergencyEngineeringComputer scienceNursingMedicineSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providing satisfactory acoustical environments in healthcare facilities can be ensured by applying recommended minimum design requirements provided in Sound and Vibration Design Guidelines for Hospital and Healthcare Facilities1. However, there are still acoustical challenges within long term care facilities that should be addressed, such as: &bull Maintaining speech privacy between rooms and corridors with large undercut door openings for air flow; &bull Maintaining STC ratings of the demising walls where the ceiling plenum is utilized for ducting and plumbing systems; &bull Maintaining speech privacy between rooms and corridors while good speech intelligibility through corridors for caregivers to hear calls from residence inside the room is required. I will discuss the aforementioned issues experienced in one Long Term Care (LTC) facilities, including all challenges for improving acoustical separation between a room, holding a person with dementia who was screaming during days and nights, and the public area, TV room / eating room. Proving the steps taken to improve this acoustical separation is discussed including all challenges on how to not affect fire separation of demising walls and door.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207