MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977816077 · doi:10.1121/1.4779640

Frequency-domain methods for modeling a nonlinear acoustic orifice

2002· article· en· W1977816077 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Egolf, William J. Murphy, John R. Franks, R.L. Kirlin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody orificeAcousticsHarmonicsFrequency domainBilinear transformTime domainComputer scienceAcoustic impedanceElectrical impedanceLinearizationNonlinear systemSound pressureTelecommunicationsPhysicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation describes frequency-domain methods for simulating transmission loss across a single orifice mounted in an acoustic waveguide. The work was a preamble to research involving earplugs containing one or more orifices. Simulation methods included direct Fourier transformation, linearization about an operating point, and Volterra series. They were applied to an electric-circuit analog of the acoustic system containing the orifice. The orifice itself was characterized by an empirical expression for nonlinear impedance obtained by fitting curves to experimental resistance and reactance data reported by other authors. Their data-collection procedures required the impedance expression presented herein to be properly labeled as a describing function, a quantity well known in the nonlinear control systems literature. Results of the computer simulations were compared to experimental transmission-loss data. For a single-tone input sound pressure, the computer code accurately predicted the output fundamental (i.e., without harmonics). For a broadband input, the simulated output was less accurate, but acceptable. Levels of the sound-pressure input ranged from 60 to 160 dB. [Work supported by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, through a research associateship granted the first author by the National Research Council.] a)Currently on leave at National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207