Subjective and objective acoustical quality in healthcare office facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses acoustical quality in 17 healthcare office facilities. A subjective survey assessed office worker perceptions of their environments and satisfaction with the acoustics. Self-reported productivity, well-being, and health outcomes were also captured. Satisfaction was lower with acoustics than with other aspects of IEQ. Satisfaction results were related to room type and the absence or presence of a sound-masking system. Physical acoustical measurements were made in six types of rooms, some with sound-masking systems, to determine the acoustical characteristics, assess their quality and relate them to the building designs. Background-noise levels were measured in the occupied buildings. In the unoccupied buildings, measurements were made of reverberation times, and “speech” levels needed to calculate speech intelligibility indices for speech intelligibility and speech privacy. In open offices, sound-level reductions per distance doubling (DL2) were measured. The results are presented, and are related to room type and partition design. The knowledge gained from this study informs the decision-making of designers and facilities management for upgrades and future design projects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".