Acoustical role of ear canal in exposure to the typical occupational noise levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
↑What is "already known" in this topic: Different ways are used in our ears to the best possible impedance matching achieved, and somehow the impedance mismatch that is released.These ways are the greater area of the eardrum to the oval window, and amplification actions of the middle ear ossicle, the ear canal, shoulder, head, and pinna. →What this article adds:Based on our knowledge, these amplification mechanisms have been neglected in the occupational health-related noise measurements and the hearing protection programs; thus, in this study, the effects of the external auditory canal on the total sound pressure level and sound pressure levels at different frequencies were studied.Also, 3 SSPLs that are usual in the workplaces were used in this research.The ear canal can amplify the sounds and increase the sound pressure levels.This amplification is found to be greater in men than in women.The resonance ability of the ear canal is larger in some frequencies, especially in higher frequencies.This ability of the ear canal should be considered in the workplace noise evaluations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".