MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087472705 · doi:10.1143/jjap.41.3228

The Motion of High-Intensity Aerial Ultrasonic Waves (20 kHz) Entering a Perforation

2002· article· en· W2087472705 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Youichi Ito

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Journal of Applied Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSustainable Development Technology Canada
KeywordsPerforationSound pressureAcousticsWavelengthUltrasonic sensorSound powerSound intensityIntensity (physics)Acoustic waveOpticsPhysicsMaterials scienceSound (geography)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The motion of high-intensity aerial converged ultrasonic waves (frequency: 20 kHz) as studied as they entered a perforation which had a smaller diameter than the wavelength of the radiated acoustic waves (approx. 17.4 mm). In addition, the characteristics of the sound field created in the perforation were studied experimentally. The acoustic waves incident upon the perforation were convergent, having a spreading angle of approx. 90°. As a result, it was elucidated that the acoustic waves favorably entered the perforation with a sufficiently smaller diameter (5 mm max) than the wavelength of the acoustic waves. A sound field of standing waves was created with the sound pressure being the maximum at the bottom of the perforation. The sound pressure increased in the ratio of the 0.5th power of the electric power supplied to the sound source. When the electric power supplied to the sound source was 50 W, a very powerful ultrasonic field of approx. 170 dB was created at the bottom of the perforation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Journal of Applied PhysicsSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207