MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurement and Characterization of Hearing Protection Devices in the Presence of Impulse Sound

2021· article· en· W3181763180 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Tardif, David Lo, Rafik Goubran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcousticsInsertion lossAttenuationHearing lossComputer scienceImpulse (physics)Acoustic attenuationOctave bandFrequency bandOctave (electronics)Materials scienceBandwidth (computing)TelecommunicationsAudiologyPhysicsMedicineOpticsOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impulsive sounds can cause severe hearing damage and even hearing loss. Sound protection devices are widely used to attenuate impulsive sounds and reduce their impact on hearing. Properly measuring and characterizing the sound attenuation is essential when choosing a specific hearing protection device. Currently, hearing protection devices are often characterized using the Impulse Peak Insertion Loss (IPIL) that measures the total attenuation across all frequency bands. IPIL does not provide any information about the spectral attenuation of the device. Human hearing is spectrally sensitive, and the risk of noise-induced hearing damage is frequency-dependent. Therefore, characterizing hearing protection devices has to be done for both the peak and the full audible frequency spectrum from 20 Hz to 20k Hz. In this paper, we propose a novel energy preserving method for estimating the 1/3 octave band insertion loss using the continuous wavelet transform. To do so, we collected gunshot audio sounds from firing a sniper rifle and evaluated the sound attenuation effect of adding a sound protection device (or sound suppressor) to the rifle. The method that we called Wavelets Octave Band Insertion Loss (WOBIL) is compared with existing methods such as the IPIL, the Impulsive Spectral Insertion Loss (ISIL) and the recently published Octave Band Impulse Peak Insertion Loss (OBIPIL).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207