Comparative study of a proposed time varying loudness standard for common sounds.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several calculation procedures exist and are standardized for the determination of loudness of steady sounds. While loudness models for unsteady sounds do presently exist, they differ in their outcomes and have not been yet sufficiently validated using round robin or other appropriate evaluation methodology. Recently, the Deutsches Institut fur Normung (DIN) announced that it will soon issue a new standard describing a method for calculation of loudness of time-varying sounds. However, the DIN 45631-A1 takes a less common approach in that it does not fully describe a methodology to calculate the unsteady loudness. It instead offers a more general procedure along with open-ended checks and balances for verifying the progress through the various calculation steps. The caveat of this is that while conditions specified by this standard may be satisfied, varying results may be achieved due to the procedures’ open architecture. Conversely, the checks and balances may be enough such that identical results are achieved for the same sounds. This study investigates several commercial applications using this standard and compares their results for several common inputs. The results of the study will be discussed in terms of the extent to which compliance with DIN 45631-A1 results in identical loudness scores.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".