MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061958902 · doi:10.1121/1.2933651

An index to quantify the through-thickness symmetry of sound absorbing materials

2008· article· en· W2061958902 on OpenAlexaff
Yacoubou Salissou, Raymond Panneton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymmetryMaterials scienceTransfer matrixSymmetry (geometry)Reflection (computer programming)AcousticsPorosityPorous mediumAbsorption (acoustics)Index (typography)OpticsComposite materialPhysicsMathematicsGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, an extension of the theoretical formulation of the transfer matrix to non symmetrical sound absorbing porous materials is carried out. From this extension, an index of asymmetry is proposed and discussed. This index allows one to quantify the through-thickness asymmetry of a sound absorbing porous material. This index may be used for quality control or to assess the symmetry of the material in terms of its acoustic properties (absorption, reflection, impedance, propagation constant). To validate the application of the index of asymmetry, samples made up from two layers of porous materials are studied. Each so-constructed two-layered sample is seen as an equivalent asymmetrical single porous layer with a sudden change in its physical properties. The acoustic properties of each sample are then measured in the direct and inverted configurations (i.e., when both sides of the sample are facing successively the incident wave). Their values are compared in terms of the asymmetry index of the equivalent single layer. From these tests, an index value is suggested. Above this value, the acoustic properties of a sound absorbing material should be considered as being not symmetrical.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207