MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1673347495

Noise exposure group surveys - Number of days to sample

2005· article· en· W1673347495 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alberto Behar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsNoise exposureSample (material)Noise (video)Sample size determinationMathematicsMedicineAudiologyComputer scienceChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study to determine the number of noise exposure measurements days required to be performed on a group of workers, so as to obtain reliable results was conducted. In all 13 groups from two different sites were involved, with sample sizes ranging from 3 to 24 employees (average 12.5). Surveys were performed for four consecutive days. The reports from the surveys included the results from each one of the four days of testing (LTTrade,8) and of the corresponding LTrade,32. The daily LTrade,8 were compared with the corresponding LTrade,32, using the Student's t-Test. Results show that for the samples being tested, there were no significant differences in 88.5% of the cases. It was concluded that one day of testing is probably sufficient. However, because of the difficulty in determining a "typical" day, it is recommended that testing be performed for two days.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.321 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207