MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964390657 · doi:10.1121/1.1931087

Airflow noise in telephone handsets and methods for its reduction

2005· article· en· W1964390657 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Stinson, Gilles A. Daigle, John F. Quaroni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirflowMicrophoneAcousticsMouthpieceNoise (video)Noise-canceling microphoneSound pressurePhysicsMicrophone arrayComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The noise in a telephone handset produced by the bursts of airflow that accompany plosive sounds such as a "p" or "t" has been investigated. Measurements have been made on a series of modified handsets, using various arrangements of ports and tubes between microphone and the exterior of the telephone mouthpiece. A narrow stream of air was used to probe the mouthpiece and the signal picked up by the microphone recorded. The use of one, two, and multiple exterior holes was considered. Two-hole approaches alleviate the static pressure buildup that occurs when a single microphone hole is used and in many cases they result in reduced noise generation; for some directions of incident airflow, though, noise can be markedly increased. This was found to be due to interaction between intersecting streams of air. By using a large number of small (less than 0.5 mm) exterior holes, the airflow noise can be reduced by over 30 dB for all incident directions of airflow. It is also beneficial to ensure that none of the exterior holes is in direct line with the sound tube leading to the microphone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207