MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502128471

Effect of Some Floor-Ceiling Construction Changes on Flanking Transmission

2010· article· en· W1502128471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frances King, Stefan Schoenwald, Brad Gover

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeiling (cloud)Flanking maneuverTransmission (telecommunications)Structural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large systematic study was carried out by the National Research Council-Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC) to evaluate a wide range of floor-ceiling designs to control transmission of airborne and impact sound between vertically adjacent rooms. As impact sources, the tapping machine according to ASTM E492 as well as the heavy sources, the ball and the 'bang-machine', according to JIS A 1418-2 were used. The first part of the study was a parametric study. The direct sound transmission of a large series of floor-ceiling assemblies was measured systematically in the NRC-IRC Floor Transmission Facility to understand the complex interaction of the various structural components and to optimize noise control measures. The second part of the study was a flanking study. A number of floor-ceiling assemblies that achieved good direct sound insulation in the parametric study were selected and their system performance was measured in the NRC-IRC Flanking Transmission Facility. The system performance is determined by the apparent sound transmission which is the sum of the direct transmission and the flanking transmission via the floor to the walls below. This paper presents some findings from this flanking study. Only impact measurements with the tapping machine are presented in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207