MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508427583

Acoustical properties of homogeneous planar surfaces in room acoustics: A theoretical review

2016· review· en· W2508427583 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Behrooz Yousefzadeh, Murray Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanarBoundary value problemAcousticsScatteringStructural acousticsPlane (geometry)Plane waveRoom acousticsWave equationPhysicsMathematical analysisGeometryMathematicsOpticsReverberationComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work reviews the fundamental boundary conditions used in room acoustics from a theoretical perspective. In particular, it is assumed that sound propagates in air as plane waves and the boundaries are planar walls. Moreover, the walls are assumed to be infinite in lateral extent and have uniform properties along their surface. These two conditions ensure that sound waves are reflected wholly specularly, as opposed to being scattered as well; the assumption of infinite lateral extent avoids scattering from the edges of the walls, and the assumption of uniform properties avoids scattered radiation caused by the inhomogeneity of the wall. Parameters used in describing the acoustical properties of the walls are introduced and, using the wave equation, expressions are derived for them in terms of the wall impedance. Theoretical relations between the parameters are then discussed based on (i) physical restrictions such as energy conservation and the causality condition and (ii) simplifying assumptions used in room acoustics such as local reaction of surfaces and the minimum-phase condition. Finally, some practical aspects of these theoretical relations are discussed using simple examples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207