Application of the direct method of ISO 10848 to flanking transmission through double leaf gypsum board walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISO 10848 describes two methods to measure flanking transmission between two adjacent rooms. The first is the indirect method and is based on the measurement of sound pressure level difference between the two rooms. The second is the direct method and uses the surface velocity level difference of coupled elements. In framed constructions, where each element coupled at the junction typically has two leaves, there can be multiple paths across a junction. The indirect method provides an estimate of the sum of all paths. Because, ISO 10848 does not provide guidance on application of the direct method, the indirect method is used almost exclusively.\nIn this paper, statistical energy analysis (SEA) is used as a framework to evaluate how the direct method of ISO 10848 should be applied to quantify the various flanking paths in framed structures. The SEA model is also used to evaluate the suitability of EN 12354 to predict flanking transmission in these structures.\nMeasurements made in the IRC/NRC flanking facility are used to compare the results of the different approaches to determine which one is most consistent with the SEA-model and the indirect method.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".