Behavioral criterion quantifying the effects of circumferential air gaps on porous materials in the standing wave tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of mounting conditions on the measurement of the absorption coefficient in the standing wave tube (swt) is investigated. In a previous paper [D. Pilon, R. Panneton, and F. Sgard, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 1980–1987 (2003)], a behavioral criterion was developed to access the effect of a circumferential edge constraint on elastic foams. Similarly, the effect of circumferential air gaps on porous materials is studied here. The objective is to identify the materials, in terms of a ratio based on their physical properties, for which it is possible to measure the theoretical absorption coefficient when mounted inside the swt with a circumferential air gap. The difference between the measured and theoretical absorption coefficient is evaluated for a wide range of materials with various sample sizes. These errors are then sorted in terms of the chosen ratio. It is shown that for certain values of the ratio, the theoretical absorption coefficient can be efficiently measured using the swt. Through the use of this acousto-visco-inertial criterion, an experimenter can determine which absorption is going to be measured: the theoretical absorption or one that will be influenced by the circumferential air gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".