MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546835570

Errors and uncertainties of classical standing wave tube methods: SWR, TMTC and TMTM

2000· article· en· W1546835570 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Benoit Lanctot, Raymond Panneton, Noureddine Atalla

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrophoneAcousticsCalibrationTube (container)Standing wavePhysicsMechanicsMathematicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis on three classical standing wave tube methods is presented to compare the precision and identifying the sensitive parameters. The studied methods are standard wave ratio (SWR), two microphone three calibration method (TMTC), two microphone transfer method (TMTM). A differential formulation is used to evaluate the errors and uncertainties on each of the methods. The porous test sample is modeled as an equivalent fluid using the Johnson-Champoux-Allard model. The results obtained for the 25 mm thick polyamide foam are described.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207