A semi-empirical model to predict the acoustic behaviour of fully and partially reticulated polyurethane foams based on microstructure properties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigates the links between the microstructure of polyurethane foams and their sound absorbing \nefficiency, and more specifically the effect of membranes closing the cells. In a previous work, the authors \nproposed a semi-empirical approach to link the foam microstructure properties, i.e. reticulation rate, strut length \nand thickness, with its non-acoustic parameters. The study was based on the complete characterization of 15 \nisotropic polyurethane foams with various cell sizes and reticulation rates (i.e. open pore content). This paper \nproposes a validation of this semi-empirical model using 3 new polyurethane foams, not used in the first \ncharacterization set. More importantly, a simplification is presented to account only for the foam cell size and \nreticulation rate. Non-acoustic parameters estimated by the micro/macro links are also compared to direct and \nindirect measurements. It is shown that the proposed expressions associated to the Johnson-Champoux-Allard \nporous model allow for a good estimation of the sound absorbing behaviour of all tested polyurethane foams, \nfully reticulated or not.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it