MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053742002 · doi:10.1121/1.2005947

Comparison of an analytic horn equation approach and a boundary element method for the calculation of sound fields in the human ear canal

2005· article· en· W2053742002 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Stinson, Gilles A. Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEar canalAcousticsPiston (optics)Transverse planeSound pressurePhysicsBoundary element methodCurvatureFrench hornPlane (geometry)Point sourceGeometryFinite element methodMathematicsOpticsEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207