MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775861028

An acoustical study of IPOD output: Effects of headsets and control settings

2006· article· en· W1775861028 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Desiree Pereira, Shaun Sharma, M. Kathleen Pichora‐Fuller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadphonesEqualizerAcousticsRange (aeronautics)Sound energyComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Speech recognitionEngineeringSound (geography)MathematicsTelecommunicationsStatisticsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An acoustical study was conducted to investigate the level of sound output of Apple iPod using different kinds of headsets and how output depends on factors such as equalizer and volume control settings. Three factors that differentiate one set of headphones from another are sensitivity, impedance, and frequency response. The acoustical output measurements were compared for samples of two genres of music played at four volume settings and different equalizer settings for three different headsets. Two 30 second sound clips were used for the tests, one from the Hip hop genre and the other from Electronica. Hip Hop songs are known for their strong precussion, thus most of their energy is concentrated in the low-frequency range between 1 and 4 KHz whereas Electronica song features synthetically produced sounds spanning a frequency range from 1 to 12 KHz. The largest and smallest differences at each volume level were used to determine which equalizer settings made the most differences. These physical measurements can be used to estimate the risk to human hearing.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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