Comparison of an analytic horn equation approach and a boundary element method for the calculation of sound fields in the human ear canal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sound field inside a model human ear canal has been computed, to show both longitudinal variations along the canal length and transverse variations through cross-sectional slices. Two methods of computation were used. A modified horn equation approach parametrizes the sound field with a single coordinate, the position along a curved center axis-this approach can accommodate the curvature and varying cross-sectional area of the ear canal but cannot compute transverse variations of the sound field. A boundary element method (BEM) was also implemented to compute the full three-dimensional sound field. Over 2000 triangular mesh elements were used to represent the ear canal geometry. For a plane piston source at the entrance plane, the pressure along the curved center axis predicted by the two methods is in good agreement, for frequencies up to 15 kHz, for four different ear canals. The BEM approach, though, reveals spatial variations of sound pressure within each canal cross section. These variations are small below 4 kHz, but increase with frequency, reaching 1.5 dB at 8 kHz and 4.5 dB at 15 kHz. For source configurations that are more realistic than a simple piston, large transverse variations in sound pressure are anticipated in the vicinity of the source.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it