MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1819745842

The new CSA Z94-2 standard hearing protection devices - Performance, selection, care and use

2002· article· en· W1819745842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHearing protectionPercentileStandard deviationTest (biology)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsAudiologyMedicineHearing loss
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 6, Test Procedures, specifies that tests should be performed as per AN SI Standard S12.6, although test results as per ANSI Standard S3.19 aie also accepted. The test procedure to be used is the Method B, that is a Rcal-car attenuation at threshold (REAT) procedure, where protectors arc fit by the subjects that arc persons not familiar with the use of protectors (naive subjects). Results from the test are reported as octave band data. Those data arc used to compute the Single Number Rating (Subject Fit 84 Percentile), abbreviated SNRCSFsm) that provides a nominal 84% protection confidence interval (i.e., 84% of the users in a well-run hearing conservation program arc expected to receive at least that much protection). The procedure for the calculation of SNR(SF84 ) is in Appendix A of the Standard. Using the SNR(SFS4 ) data, a Grade will be assigned to the protector, as per Table 2. If, however, data from measurements using the procedure in ANSI Standard S3.19 are used, then and attenuation class will be assigned as per Table 3 in the Standard. The Force Measurement of the headband is compulsory for muffs. However, the Physical Performance Tests described in the Standard are optional. Section 7, Packaging Information is of especial interest to manufacturers. The following three sections: Section 8. Selection, Care and Use: Overview and General Requirements, Section 9, Selection of Hearing Protection Devices and Section 10, Fit, Care and Use of Hearing Protection Devices are most important for users and health and safety professionals, sincc they deal with issues fundamental for an efficient use of protectors in the workplace. This information is complemented with Section 11, Implementation, that is a guide on how to introduce protectors in the workplace in such a way that they are used efficiently. Sections 8 through 11 include information such as sound attenuation, attenuation at frequency extremes, double protection, overprotection, etc. Their content will be helpful to anyone writing Heal ing Protection Program in the workplace. The last Section 12, Specialized Hearing Protection Devices, is a guide into tire nonconventional types of hearing protectors, their characteristics and applications. It includes active protection devices (ANR headsets), protectors with linear attenuation, sound restoration, frequency sensitive, etc. The Standard, 49 pages long, is available from the Canadian Standard Association whose web site iswww.csa.ca

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.

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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.168 · 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