MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988379474 · doi:10.1121/1.4788467

Multi-variate error analysis of beam-forming acoustic measurements in a wind-tunnel

2005· article· en· W1988379474 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ramani Ramakrishnan, Greg Kawall, Pushpinder Singh Bhullar, Norman R. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingAcousticsMicrophoneMicrophone arrayWind tunnelNoise (video)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineeringLoudspeaker

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Source localization has been in the forefront in acoustics, since quantification of the source power and its exact location is de rigueur for successful noise control. Starting from single microphone measurements, many different methods, progressively more successful and complex, have been attempted for source localization. Recently, beam-forming methods, due to their success in underwater acoustics and architectural acoustics, have been used in wind tunnel tests. These tests have been quite extensively utilized both in automotive and aircraft tests. Beamforming techniques use an array of microphones, arranged in different patterns, to detect the source location and source power. In beamforming, the array in effect beams, not in the physical sense, towards the source to determine its position. Various parameters determine the success of the beamforming techniques. Some of these parameters are: number of microphones, microphone spacing, array pattern, source frequency and signal analysis procedures. A series of microphone array tests were conducted at the national Research Council of Canada’s wind tunnel, with and without flow. The source location was known a priori. A multi-variate error analysis was performed to determine the importance of the different parameters. The results of the analysis will be presented in this paper.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207