SCALE-MODEL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT AND OPTIMAL DESIGN OF SOUND ABSORBERS IN AN OPEN-PLAN OFFICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UBC Vancouver AERL building fourth-floor open-plan student area contains TECTUM sound-absorptive baffles located flat against, and suspended from, the ceiling. Is this the optimal configuration or would they, for example, be more effective if located in a different configuration? This paper discusses tests performed in a 1:8-scale open-plan model with 18 workstations, using a suitable 1:8-scale-model sound-absorbing material (6-mm-thick felt), to investigate the sound absorption provided by acoustical treatments such as baffles in AERL and find the optimal configuration. Both the reverberation time (T_20 in s) and sound level decrease per doubling of distance (DL2 in dB/dd) were tested for 15 different absorber configurations (suspended, ceiling-mounted and sidewall absorbers and their various combinations), including the current configuration. The optimal absorber configuration ? absorber covering the whole ceiling and, the second best, a combination of all types of absorber ? was the same for both T_20 and DL2, and performed much better than the current configuration of the AERL space area.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".