MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090287737 · doi:10.1121/1.3125769

The objective measurement of individual earplug field performance

2009· article· en· W2090287737 on OpenAlexafffund
Jérémie Voix, Frédéric Laville

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsAttenuationAcousticsMicrophoneHearing protectionComputer scienceField (mathematics)CalibrationAudiologyMathematicsOpticsPhysicsHearing lossStatisticsSound pressureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a field-microphone-in-real-ear (MIRE) method for the objective measurement of individual earplug field attenuation. This development was made possible by using a recently designed instrumented expandable custom earplug. From the measurement of the noise reduction (NR) through the earplug, this method predicts the attenuation that would be experienced by the wearer and that would be measured using the real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) method. Formulations presented include establishing the relationship between NR, insertion loss, and REAT, as well as defining the laboratory and field calibration procedures required to determine the correction factors to be applied to the measured NR. This method was validated experimentally by comparing the predicted field-MIRE attenuation values to the REAT values measured on a group of test-subjects. This method offers fast and accurate measurement of earplug field performance on an individual basis and could lead to further developments for effective hearing protection practices as well as for hearing protection device rating and labeling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207