MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154133771

Application of the direct method of ISO 10848 to flanking transmission through double leaf gypsum board walls

2005· article· en· W2154133771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefan Schoenwald, Trt Nightingale, E. Gerretsen, HJ Heiko Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlanking maneuverStatistical energy analysisTransmission (telecommunications)Measure (data warehouse)StatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringFinite element methodStructural engineeringData miningTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207