Some Temporal and Spatial Effects of Room Acoustics on Speech Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The speech privacy of meeting rooms relates to the possibility of eavesdroppers outside the room being able to understand speech from within the meeting room. Although the speech privacy of meeting rooms is usually assumed to relate to the level of the speech transmitted from the room relative to the ambient noise outside the room, the intelligibility of the transmitted speech is also influenced by room acoustics. However, the audibility of speech is only influenced by the levels of the transmitted speech and ambient noise. This paper reports on a series of speech intelligibility tests in which the components of the problem were systematically added. As expected, adding early reflections of speech from various directions increases intelligibility but later-arriving speech sounds decrease intelligibility. While a spatial separation of speech and noise sources in free field conditions increases speech intelligibility (spatial release from masking), in more realistic conditions, representing a diffuse ambient noise field, the effects are much smaller. Conditions are further complicated by the sever filtering of the speech on transmission through typical walls. The combined effects can be estimated and are significant. If ignored costly over-design of the sound isolation of the meeting room could occur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".