MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607257201

Loudness prediction model comparison using the equal loudness contours

2009· article· en· W1607257201 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jeremy Charbonneau, Colin Novak, Helen Ule

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoudnessSoftwareSound qualityComputer scienceAcousticsSpeech recognitionPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two of the standardized methods for calculating available steady-state loudness are discussed. The first of these standardized methods is the German standard, called DIN 45631 and the second standardized method is the American ANSI S3.4:2005 standard. The DIN 45631 approach calculates the loudness levels in a similar manner to the 1975 ISO 532B standardized method with minor changes to the procedure. Loudness levels using the German standardized method has been determined directly using the commercially available Bruel & Kjaer PULSE LabShop software. Pure tones have been generated using a B&K 3560 B-Frame and fed back directly into an input channel on the acquisition system to control the signal quality.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicVehicle Noise and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207