MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058032193 · doi:10.1121/1.4784307

Sound absorption and reflection from ceilings in open offices

2004· article· en· W2058032193 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. C. Warnock

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeiling (cloud)AcousticsAttenuationAbsorption (acoustics)Materials scienceCeiling effectWork (physics)Environmental scienceOpticsPhysicsThermodynamicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound attenuation between work areas in open offices depends on barrier height and the sound-absorbing properties of the ceiling. Two methods for evaluating the sound-absorption ceilings are available: ASTM E1111, which gives a rating called the articulation class (AC), and ASTM C423, which gives sound-absorption average (SAA). Measurements of six ceiling systems made in accordance with ASTM E1111 and ASTM C423 provide a link between AC and SAA. Manufacturers often do not provide both ratings for their products, and it is useful to be able to use either rating system. SAA and measured AC for a 1.5-m-high screen are related by AC=102×SAA+91.4. SAA and calculated values of AC for a 1.8-m-high screen are related by AC=118 SAA+93. In the absence of E1111 test data, C423 SAA values can be used to select ceiling systems. The commonly recommended minimum SAA of 0.9 corresponds to an AC of 180 when the screen height is 1.5 m and to an AC of 200 when the screen height is 1.8 m. An approximate conversion from absorption coefficients to reflection coefficients agrees well with earlier work.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207