New healthcare acoustics subcommittee: Overview and call for participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics (TCAA) formed a new Healthcare Acoustics subcommittee at the 165th meeting in Montreal. The 1st meeting of the Healthcare Acoustics subcommittee will be held at the 166th meeting in San Francisco. This presentation will provide an overview of the purpose of the subcommittee and introduce possible initiatives on which the subcommittee may want to initially focus. Examples: 1. Despite financial incentive to make their hospitals quieter, most healthcare providers cannot significantly increase their “quiet-at-night” (HCAHPS) scores in their older or newer inpatient facilities. The national “quiet-at-night” (HCAHPS) score remains the lowest of all patient experience quality indicators. Changing things may require a significant paradigm shift in the architectural and acoustical communities. 2. The Facility Guidelines Institute (FGI) has developed its new Guidelines for Design and Construction of Residential Health, Care, and Support Facilities to be published in early 2014. Those Guidelines for eldercare facilities will include terms and concepts such as “nature sounds,” “positive auditory distraction,” “auditory landmark,” “music,” “quiet rooms,” “quietly operating,” etc., that have yet be fully defined acoustically. Please attend and participate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".