MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512297772

Comparison of two methods of transfer path analysis applied to snowmobile for noise source identification

2016· article· en· W2512297772 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nassardin Guenfoud, Olivier Robin, Raymond Panneton, Alain Desrochers, Walid Belgacem

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfer functionTransfer matrixInverseSingular value decompositionReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Noise (video)Path (computing)AcousticsElectrical impedanceInverse problemComputer scienceSuspension (topology)MathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsEngineeringMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to propose a vibro-acoustic modeling of a snowmobile suspension in order to determine the elements and transfer paths that contribute most to the global noise of this mechanical system. Two approaches, Transfer Path Analysis (TPA) and Operational Transfer Path Analysis (OTPA) are compared. The first one consists in using measurements of mechanical impedance, the operational data, and the airborne transfer functions obtained according to the reciprocity principle. In the second approach, the airborne transfer functions are no longer measured, but are now calculated using an inverse method and operational data only. Consequently, two different matrix models for these airborne transfer functions are obtained. In both cases, the mechanical excitation forces are determined by inverse method using singular value decomposition. Finally, an experiment is set up to conclude on which approach provides the best reconstruction and identification of contributors to the radiated noise. The applicability and rapidity of each model are also discussed in the conclusion.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicVehicle Noise and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207