Behavioral criterion quantifying the edge-constrained effects on foams in the standing wave tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of mounting conditions on the measurement of the sound absorption coefficient is investigated. More specifically, the effects of a circumferential edge constraint applied on elastic foams in a standing wave tube are studied. The objective is to identify the foams for which it is possible to measure the theoretical absorption coefficient using the tube. This identification relies on the evaluation of a new parameter, the Frame Acoustical Excitability (FAE), based on the foams' physical properties. In order to quantify the difference between the measured and theoretical absorptions, a linear correlation coefficient is evaluated for a wide range of foams with various sample sizes. The calculated correlation coefficients are then sorted in terms of the FAE. It is shown that as the value of FAE increases, the difference between the measured and theoretical absorption coefficients becomes more significant. A critical value of FAE, below which the theoretical absorption can be efficiently measured using the tube, is established. Through the use of this elasto-acoustic criterion, an experimenter can make an educated guess as to which absorption is measured with the tube: the theoretical absorption or one that is affected by either the edge constraint or the sample's dimensions.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".