MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990700473 · doi:10.1121/1.4782239

Acoustical studies of the American reed organ

2004· article· en· W1990700473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James P. Cottingham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser Doppler vibrometerOscillation (cell signaling)AcousticsVibrationPhysicsTransverse planeBeam (structure)AmplitudeOpticsLaserLaser beamsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reed organ enjoyed a period of great popularity in North America which reached a peak in the late 19th century, when thousands of instruments per year were manufactured and sold in the United States and Canada. Displaced by the emergence of the upright piano, the reed organ had very much fallen out of favor by 1929. In the past decade a number of acoustical investigations have been undertaken on the instrument known as the American reed organ. Observations of reed motion and velocity have been made with electronic proximity sensors and a laser vibrometer system. The variation of the frequency and amplitude of reed vibration as a function of blowing pressure has been explored in some detail and the results compared with predictions of a simple theoretical model. Measurements have been made of the spectrum of the near-field sound including the effects of changes in dimensions of the reed cell. While most treatments of free reed oscillation approximate the reed vibration as a sinusoidal oscillation of a cantilever beam in the fundamental transverse mode, recently some evidence of higher transverse modes and torsional modes of vibration have been observed.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207