Effect of Some Floor-Ceiling Construction Changes on Flanking Transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".