MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2080477687 · doi:10.1121/1.4899697

Sound field uncertainty budget for real-ear attenuation at threshold measurement per ANSI S12.6 standards

2014· article· en· W2080477687 on OpenAlexaff
Jérémie Voix, Céline Lapotre

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrophoneAcousticsEardrumTest fixtureAttenuationComputer scienceSound (geography)Sound pressurePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many national and international standards, the attenuation of Hearing Protection Devices is rated according to a psychophysical method called Real-Ear Attenuation at Threshold (REAT), which averages on a group of test-subjects the difference between the open and occluded auditory thresholds. In ANSI S12.6 standard, these REAT tests are conducted in a diffuse sound field in which sound uniformity and directionality are assessed by two objective microphone measurements. While the ANSI S12.6 standard defines these two criteria, it does not link the microphone measurements to the actual variation of sound pressure level at the eardrum that may originate from natural head movements during testing. This presentation examines this issue with detailed measurements conducted in an ANSI S12.6-compliant audiometric booth using an Artificial Test Fixture (ATF). The sound pressure level variations were recorded for movements of the ATF along the three main spatial axes and two rotation planes. From these measured variations and different head movements hypothetical scenarios, various sound field uncertainty budgets were computed. These findings will be discussed in order to eventually include them for uncertainty budget in a revised version of the ANSI S12.6 standard.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→