Acoustical evaluation of nonclassroom university learning spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an acoustical evaluation of non-classroom learning spaces at UBC. In twelve buildings, 25 indoor spaces -- a restaurant, a cafeteria, libraries, dedicated study spaces, building atria, etc. -- used for learning activities by at least 50 people were studied. The evaluation involved physical and acoustical (reverberation time, sound propagation, Speech Intelligibility Index) measurements, and occupant activity and satisfaction questionnaires. Questionnaires were administered three times (morning, lunchtime, and afternoon) on one day. The questionnaires asked about satisfaction with, and the effects of, the acoustical and nonacoustical environments. The acoustical measurement results were compared with established acceptability criteria. Questionnaires were analyzed for differences between times of day, test space, etc. The questionnaire responses and acoustical-measurement results were correlated. Using both as possible predictors, multivariable-regression models for predicting and explaining occupant satisfaction with, and the effects of, the acoustical environment were developed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".