MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079788796 · doi:10.1121/1.2935344

The intensity in a reverberant field as an acoustic energy-density gradient

2008· article· en· W2079788796 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Valeau, Matthieu Boirlaud, Judicaël Picaut, Murray Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound intensityPhysicsIntensity (physics)Sound energyDiffusionSpecular reflectionRay tracing (physics)AcousticsAcoustic source localizationAcoustic waveOpticsSound (geography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical assumption for diffuse reverberant sound fields is that the acoustic energy flow at any location in a room -- i.e., the acoustic intensity -- is null. For rooms with disproportionate dimensions and/or uneven absorption distributions, this assumption no longer holds. Over the past few years, a room-acoustic diffusion model has been developed that can be seen as an extension of the statistical theory to nondiffuse sound fields. This work investigates the basic gradient-equation underlying this diffusion theory: it states that the energy-flow vector is proportional to both the gradient of the acoustic energy density, and to the room diffusion constant. The gradient equation for the acoustic intensity is confirmed numerically by comparison with calculations of the intensity vector using a particle-tracing model and a ray-tracing model. Examples are presented for a room with a diffuse sound field, and for elongated rooms where the sound field is strongly non-diffuse, in the case of both diffuse and specular reflections.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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