MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032799404 · doi:10.1121/1.4743716

Low-frequency impact sound rating of floor systems

2000· article· en· W2032799404 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. C. Warnock

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoistCeiling (cloud)SoundproofingAcousticsStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extensive series of measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation on joist floors of various types was recently completed at NRC. About 190 floors with different joist types, subfloors, ceiling types, ceiling support systems, and type and thickness of sound absorber were constructed and sound insulation measured to frequencies lower than required by standards. The joist types comprised solid wood, wood trusses, I-joists, and steel joists. Glass, rock, and cellulose fiber sound-absorbing material were used. Three concrete slabs were included in the series and a few of the joist floors had concrete toppings installed. Impact devices used on the floors included the standard ISO/ASTM E492 tapping machine, a walker, a JIS 1419 tire impactor, and two experimental rubber balls. The impact measurements provide an extensive, consistent set for examining alternative impact tests and possible modifications to standard tests using the ISO tapping machine. Correlations among the sound levels from the different impactors show that levels from the ISO tapping machine correlate well with those from a walker at low frequencies, although the spectra are quite different in shape. An overview of the data and the prospects for a new test method and rating system will be presented.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207