MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156943002 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2007.4413647

A signal processing approach to auditory alarm design and evaluation: An analysis of melodic medical equipment alarms

2007· article· en· W2156943002 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Lau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelodySignal processingComputer scienceSpeech recognitionALARMSIGNAL (programming language)Consistency (knowledge bases)PerceptionDigital signal processingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer hardwareElectrical engineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the application of signal processing in evaluating the design of acoustic and perceptual properties for auditory alarms. An analysis adopting a signal processing approach was conducted on a subset of the melodic alarms for medical electronic equipment proposed by the IEC 60601-1-8 standard. We compared our analytical findings with empirical results on discriminability by P.M. Sanderson et al.(2006) and found general consistency between the two. The comparison sheds light on how signal processing techniques could contribute to evaluation of auditory alarms and the development of standards. Implications for design are also discussed.

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)0.005
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207