MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084871656 · doi:10.1121/1.3384213

Measurement of speech privacy of closed rooms using the American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM E2638.

2010· article· en· W2084871656 on OpenAlexaff
Bradford N. Gover, John S. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)SecrecyTest (biology)Variety (cybernetics)AcousticsComputer securityArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degree of speech privacy between various locations in buildings has been of increasing concern, driven in part by legislative requirements and the desire for increased security. Until recently, ASTM E1130 “Standard Test Method for Objective Measurement of Speech Privacy in Open Plan Spaces Using Articulation Index” has been the only standardized measurement method available. This test method is, for a variety of reasons, not suitable for assessing speech privacy of closed rooms or conditions of very high-speech privacy. These issues are, however, addressed by the new ASTM E2638 “Standard Test Method for Objective Measurement of the Speech Privacy Provided by a Closed Room.” ASTM E2638 describes a test method suitable for enclosed rooms of nearly all sizes and defines a measure called speech privacy class that can be used to accurately rate speech privacy over a very broad range, from no privacy to very high secrecy. The new E2638 measurement method will be described, and measurements in several real rooms will be presented.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207