MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993494790 · doi:10.1121/1.2904465

Evaluating the maximum playback sound levels from portable digital audio players

2008· article· en· W1993494790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen E. Keith, David S. Michaud, Vincent Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital audioSound (geography)Computer scienceAcousticsSound recording and reproductionSpeech recognitionAudio signalPhysicsSpeech coding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the maximum sound levels that may be experienced by young people in Canada from modern digital audio players, this study measured nine recent models of players and 20 earphones. Measurement methodology followed European standard BS EN 50332. Playback levels ranged from 101 to 107 dBA at maximum volume level. Estimated listener sound levels could vary from 79 to 125 dBA due to the following factors: (i) earphone seal against the ear, (ii) player output voltage, (iii) earphone sensitivity, and (iv) recorded music levels. There was a greater potential for high sound levels if intra-concha "earbud" earphones were used due to the effect of earphone seal. Simpler measurement techniques were explored as field test methods; the best results were obtained by sealing the microphone of a sound level meter to the earphone using a cupped hand and correcting for the free field response of the ear. Measurement of noise levels 0.25 m from the earphone showed that a bystander is unlikely to accurately judge listener sound levels.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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