MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990946974 · doi:10.1121/1.4780126

The effects of stage configurations in a recital hall

2003· article· en· W1990946974 on OpenAlexaff
Wonyoung Yang, Kathleen K. Hodgdon, Jiry Tichy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcousticsReflector (photography)Stage (stratigraphy)LoudnessReverberationBass (fish)PhysicsMathematicsOpticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The room acoustical parameters, the reverberation time (RT), the early decay time (EDT), the bass ratio (BR), the clarity factor (C80), the initial time delay gap (ITDG), and the interaural cross-correlation coefficient (IACC) were measured for acoustical evaluation both in the audience seats and on the stage, using six different stage configurations in a 450-seat unoccupied hall. The stage configurations consisted of combinations of varying the position of the drapes with and without the reflector at the back of the stage. The listening test was conducted in a laboratory using high fidelity headphones to verify the subjective preference for the seats and the presence of the reflector. Analysis showed that the draped area of the stage was related to the RT, EDT, C80, BR, while the ITDG was strongly dependent on the presence of the reflector. There was not a strong impact observed in the IACC for the varying configurations. In general, the reflectors improved most of the acoustical parameters. The loudness of the musical sound was the primary parameter used to decide the subjective preference, which correlated with the C80 and the ITDG with the reflector.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→