MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538401679

Toward a realistic estimate of octave band sound levels for electric transformers

2010· article· en· W1538401679 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert D. Stevens, Chris Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
FundersDepartment of Psychology, Harvard UniversityMinistry of EnvironmentHarvard University
KeywordsWeightingTransformerA-weightingAcousticsOctave bandOctave (electronics)Computer scienceSpeech recognitionEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltagePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The typical starting point, when evaluating the sound emissions of a proposed transformer, is to obtain the manufacturer's sound level data or develop an estimate using generic prediction equations from a published textbook.If sound level information is available from the transformer manufacturer -whether measured or estimated -it is usually given only in terms of an overall A-weighted ("dBA") value.So, for detailed analysis in octave frequency bands, textbook information is still usually required, in terms o f the spectral weightings needed to apportion the single dBA level into its component octave band sound levels.Unfortunately, the information in the published reference texts varies enormously with regard to the suggested spectral weighting corrections.The corrections in some texts are internally inconsistent, and the discrepancy among different texts (even those which cite the same primary references) is severe enough to call the whole body of data into question.This paper enumerates the inconsistencies and discrepancies within and among several commonly used acoustical engineering text books and compares the textbook levels to a wide body o f data collected at numerous outdoor transformer installations throughout Ontario.Suggestions are provided for realistic spectral weightings and sound level estimates for transformers, on the basis of the measured data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207