MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054264025 · doi:10.1121/1.4778810

Prospects for a test procedure for rating floor toppings on joist floors

2002· article· en· W2054264025 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. C. Warnock

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoistSlabStructural engineeringReduction (mathematics)ToppingMathematicsTest (biology)EngineeringGeologyGeometryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently ASTM issued a new test method, E2179, for rating the reduction in impact noise when a floor topping is placed on a concrete slab. E2179 is essentially the same as ISO140-8. Measurements have shown that the reduction in impact noise obtained when a floor topping is placed on a concrete slab is not the same as when the topping is placed on a wooden subfloor supported on joists. To complicate matters, the improvement obtained for a given topping changes when the construction of the joist floor on which it is placed changes. Thus a standard test method with a rigorous definition of a reference joist floor might be created but the measured improvements would not necessarily be applicable to joist floors of different construction. The ISO and ASTM single number ratings for some joist floor systems with toppings do not always give good agreement because of the 8 dB rule that exists in ASTM E989 but is absent in ISO 717-2. This paper will review some of the activities in ASTM and ISO and present some measurement resuts obtained in several laboratories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207