MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029663504 · doi:10.1121/1.4779455

Microphone interlaboratory comparison in the Americas

2002· article· en· W2029663504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNISTMetrologyMicrophoneNational standardCalibrationGeographyLibrary scienceTelecommunicationsEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The final results of a Sistema Interamericano de Metrologia (SIM) interlaboratory comparison on microphone calibration are presented. Initially the comparison involved NORAMET countries: USA, Canada, and Mexico. Later, the comparison was extended to include Argentina and Brazil, resulting in a SIM AUV.A-K1 microphone interlaboratory comparison. The National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) of the five American countries that participated were the Institute for National Measurement Standards (INMS—Canada), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST—USA), Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM—Mexico), Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e Qualidade Industrial (INMETRO—Brazil) and Unidad Técnica Acústica, (INTI—Argentina). INMS, Canada was the pilot laboratory that provided the data for the final report. The maximum rms deviation for the two LS1P laboratory standard microphones measured by the above participants is 0.037 dB that may be considered as the key comparison reference value.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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