MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994039981 · doi:10.1121/1.4809173

Subjective assessment of listening environments in classrooms

2002· article· en· W1994039981 on OpenAlexaff
Murray Hodgson, Susan Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningPerceptionPsychologyMicrophoneNoise (video)AudiologyApplied psychologyAcousticsComputer scienceMedicineCommunicationSound pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate subjective perception of the listening environment by university classroom users. The questionnaire was administered to over 5700 students in 30 randomly selected classrooms. The questionnaire recorded students’ perceptions of the listening environment and possible modifying factors. A ‘‘perception of listening ease’’ (PLE) score was generated. Items most associated with a poor listening environment were noise from other students and intermittent noises outside the classroom. Over 50% of students reported frequent difficulty with hearing questions from other students. Poorer PLE score was associated with high background noise from students, an instructor who articulates poorly, poorer classroom lighting and ‘‘room air,’’ microphone use, and decreased room volume per student. In large classrooms, hearing-impaired students scored PLE lower. Results indicate that PLE is a reliable and valid measure of classroom users’ subjective perceptions of the listening environment, and that optimal classroom acoustical design needs to take into consideration ‘‘in-use’’ conditions, as well as physical characteristics of the empty classroom.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207