MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033284186 · doi:10.1121/1.4783960

Measurement of diffuse sound reflection from an impedance surfaces using one microphone by bayesian inversion.

2009· article· en· W2033284186 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Steininger, Murray Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcousticsAcoustic impedanceMathematical analysisElectrical impedanceAnechoic chamberDiffusion equationMicrophoneMathematicsPhysicsSound pressureMaterials scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the use of inverse methods to find the absorption and diffusion characteristics of surfaces. An impedance surface in an anechoic chamber is excited by a pure tone source above it. The steady-state sound level is measured at n points above the impedance surface. The distribution of the n steady-state sound-pressure levels is assumed to be Gaussian. The set of mean or predicted values for this distribution is generated by finding the modulus of a modified Sommerfeld boundary element solution to the Helmholtz equation. The modification is to add multiple diffusely reflected waves each of which is additionally attenuated by a distribution that is proportional to sin(2θ)×G(θ)Dθ×H(φ)Dφ, where G(θ) is the piecewise function [G(θ)=θ/θSpec, θ⩽θSpec, and [(π/2)−θ]/[(π/2)−θ]Spec otherwise] and H(φ)=|(1−φ)/π|. The system of equations is then optimized for the specific impedance of the surface, the normal diffusion coefficient, and the azimuth diffusion coefficient (Z, Dθ, and Dφ) using Bayesian inversion. This process is repeated for two surfaces (painted plywood over 16 inch studs and painted plywood over 16 inch studs with randomly placed wooden blocks) at six frequencies (250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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