MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084001391 · doi:10.1121/1.1317555

Optimum near-field performance of microphone arrays subject to a far-field beampattern constraint

2000· article· en· W2084001391 on OpenAlexafffund
James G. Ryan, Rafik Goubran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council CanadaInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMicrophone arrayNear and far fieldInterference (communication)Constraint (computer-aided design)Robustness (evolution)Computer scienceAcousticsMicrophoneField (mathematics)MathematicsPhysicsTelecommunicationsOpticsLoudspeakerGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the problem of maximizing the near-field gain of a microphone array subject to a constraint on the far-field beampattern. The problem arises when acquiring speech from a near-field talker in the presence of a strong source of interference located farther from the array. When the angles of incidence from the near-field target and the far-field interference are identical, enforcing a null constraint in the interference direction reduces array gain and robustness. This article shows how to mitigate this effect by selection of the constrained response level. A suitable selection is to force the beampattern in the interference direction to be proportional to the unconstrained beampattern. The proportionality constant can then be used to trade off interference reduction and array gain. Specific numerical examples are provided.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207