On the simplifications used in mobility models to predict structureborne power flow in wood stud walls with direct-attached gypsum board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mobility approach is a comparatively simple method to compute structure borne power flow between plates and beams coupled at one, or more, well defined points. Implicit to these expressions are a number of assumptions. Simplifications are also made when modelling wood stud wall systems. Using ordinary point force mobilities Craik and Smith [1] predicted with good accuracy the structural power flow across a wood stud wall with direct-attached gypsum board on both sides when the screws on either side of the stud were aligned. This type of alignment cannot be assumed if the wall has resilient channels. Thus it is necessary to evaluate the mobility assumptions to determine the most appropriate method to model walls with resilient channels. In this paper, the first of two, assumptions regarding the vibration response of the stud and gypsum board in isolation are evaluated. The second paper [2] examines the power flow from the stud to the gypsum board as a function of number and location of the screws. The paper begins with a brief review of the mobility expressions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".