Prediction of Sound Insulation Using Artificial Neural Networks—Part I: Lightweight Wooden Floor Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The artificial neural networks approach is applied to estimate the acoustic performance for airborne and impact sound insulation curves of different lightweight wooden floors. The prediction model is developed based on 252 standardized laboratory measurement curves in one-third octave bands (50–5000 Hz). Physical and geometric characteristics of each floor structure (materials, thickness, density, dimensions, mass and more) are utilized as network parameters. The predictive capability is satisfactory, and the model can estimate airborne sound better than impact sound cases especially in the middle-frequency range (250–1000 Hz), while higher frequency bands often show high errors. The forecast of the weighted airborne sound reduction index Rw was calculated with a maximum error of 2 dB. However, the error increased up to 5 dB in the worse case prediction of the weighted normalized impact sound pressure level Ln,w. The model showed high variations near the fundamental and critical frequency areas which affect the accuracy. A feature attribution analysis explored the essential parameters on estimation of sound insulation. The thickness of the insulation materials, the density of cross-laminated timber slab and the concrete floating floors and the total density of floor structures seem to affect predictions the most. A comparison between wet and dry floor solution systems indicated the importance of the upper part of floors to estimate airborne and impact sound in low frequencies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".