MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069755128 · doi:10.1121/1.4800423

The impact of including diffraction when predicting the effect of listener environment on the perceived loudness of outdoor sonic booms

2013· article· en· W2069755128 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amanda Lind, Victor W. Sparrow

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTransport CanadaPennsylvania State UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSonic boomLoudnessAcousticsDiffractionComputer scienceBoomWaveformGeologyOpticsPhysicsRadarAerospace engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human impact of sonic booms varies with listening environment. Given the incident sonic boom waveform, the specular field around a realistic geometry has been predicted via a C++ implementation of image source method (ISM) tailored to this outdoor application. This work explores the necessity of including the diffracted field when predicting time series and perceived loudness (PLdB), both in and out of the shadow zone. The impulsive nature of the excitation, and the sensitivity of the PLdB to temporal details, constrains appropriate diffraction modeling techniques to those capable of time domain accuracy. Uniform Theory of Diffraction (UTD) and Biot Tolstoy Medwin (BTM) models are considered, exploring the benefits and challenges of each approach, particularly with regards to scalability and bandwidth. The importance of accurately predicting diffraction for this application is evaluated through comparison with booms recorded around a building corresponding to the simulated geometry.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207