The effect of receiving room sound field on the impact ball sound pressure level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field measurement method of heavy-weight impact sound pressure level using impact ball have been used in Korea, Japan and Canada. Also this field measurement method is discussing in ISO. Impact force and subjective responses of impact ball are very similar with child's jumping and running. In Korea and Japan is considering that using impact ball as standard impact source instead of bang machine. It is reported that heavy-weight impact sound pressure level using bang machine was varied by the sound field condition of receiving room such as sound absorption power and room volume. In this study, it is checked that impact ball sound pressure level also affected by the receiving sound field condition. Impact ball sound pressure level was measured vertically connected reverberation chamber and sound absorption power was changed by polyester sound absorption blanket with air space and glass wool. The reverberation time at 1 kHz band was changed from 10 s to 0.2 s by sound absorption material. Impact ball sound pressure level measured without sound absorption material was 58 dB in Li, Fmax, AW, but the level was 46 dB with sound absorption treatment. From this result, it is confirmed that sound field correction term may be needed in the heavy-weight impact sound pressure level measurement method using impact ball.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".