MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073238265 · doi:10.1121/1.3076929

Normal incidence sound transmission loss evaluation by upstream surface impedance measurements

2009· article· en· W2073238265 on OpenAlexafffund
Raymond Panneton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcousticsPipingElectrical impedanceTransfer matrixBoundary element methodTransmission lossNoise controlMicrophoneMaterials scienceExpansion chamberMufflerIsotropyNoise (video)Sound transmission classFinite element methodMechanicsPhysicsOpticsStructural engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceNoise reductionMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringSound pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method is developed to obtain the normal incidence sound transmission loss of noise control elements used in piping systems from upstream surface impedance measurements only. The noise control element may be a small material specimen in an impedance tube, a sealing part in an automotive hollow body network, an expansion chamber, a resonator, or a muffler. The developments are based on a transfer matrix (four-pole) representation of the noise control element and on the assumption that only plane waves propagate upstream and downstream the element. No assumptions are made on its boundary conditions, dimensions, shape, and material properties (i.e., the element may be symmetrical or not along its thickness, homogeneous or not, isotropic or not). One-load and two-load procedures are also proposed to identify the transfer matrix coefficients needed to obtain the true transmission loss of the tested element. The method can be used with a classical two-microphone impedance tube setup (i.e., no additional downstream tube and downstream acoustical measurements). The method is tested on three different noise control elements: two impedance tube multilayered specimens and one expansion chamber. The results found using the developed method are validated using numerical simulations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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