Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field measurement method of heavy/soft impact sound pressure level which is regulated in JIS and ISO has been using in Korea, Japan and Canada. It is reported that heavy/soft impact sound pressure level was varied by the sound field condition of receiving room such as sound absorption power and room volume. In this study, it is checked that heavy/soft impact sound pressure level was affected by the receiving sound field condition. Rubber ball and bang machine sound pressure level was measured in the vertically connected reverberation chamber. In oder to check the effect of receiving sound field on heavy/soft impact sound pressure, sound absorption power was changed with polyester sound absorption blankets with air space and glass wool. The reverberation time at 1 kHz band was changed from 10 s to 0.2 s by sound absorption material. Rubber ball sound pressure level measured without sound absorption material was 58 dB in $L_{i,Fmax,AW}$, but the level was 46 dB with sound absorption treatment. From this result, it is confirmed that sound field correction method is needed in the heavy/soft impact sound pressure level measurement method using bang machine and rubber ball.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".