MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998110835

Acoustical Considerations for Design-Build Mental and Behavioural Healthcare Facilities

2019· article· en· W2998110835 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMainstreamQuality (philosophy)Health careScrutinyProcess (computing)PsychologyRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringNursingBusinessMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that good quality healthcare environments are a key driver to patient wellbeing.  There is evidence to suggest that acoustical quality may also have an important part in the recovery and treatment of patients suffering mental or behavioural health issues, with poor acoustic conditions seemingly exacerbating negative human-response effects such as irritability, anxiety, stress-related dementia and even lowered immune system symptoms. While there is a wealth of information, guidance and well-rehearsed best practice for the acoustical design and construction of mainstream healthcare buildings, it is often the case that the acoustical requirements for mental or behavioural health are simply assumed to be the same as for all other patient care facilities.  In speaking to users groups, healthcare professionals and researchers it is clear that relying solely on traditional sound isolation or absorption treatments will not necessarily provide acoustical conditions that either promote patient wellbeing or provide sufficient safeguards to protect patient privacy. The challenges faced by designers, engineers and contractors in achieving an acoustical environment within successful and healthy treatment spaces requires careful consideration by the acoustician, with a delicate balance to be made between acoustic adequacy and patient safety.  Building layout, adjacencies and the selection of materials and finishes requires scrutiny so that the completed building reflects not only the needs of patients and healthcare professionals but, which also ensures an efficient and cost-effective design-build process. The paper will present the challenges and constraints faced by designers, engineers and contractors in achieving a successful design for mental or behavioural health facilities and will discuss and evaluate contemporary examples of acoustical treatments and noise control measures used within mental or behavioural treatment facilities located in Western Canada.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207