Acoustical Evaluation of Six ‘Green’ Office Buildings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To explain the reactions of the building occupants to their acoustical environments, meetings with the designers, walk-through surveys, and detailed acoustical measurements were done. The objective was to determine how design decisions affect office acoustical environments, and how to improve the acoustical design of ‘green’ office buildings. Design-performance criteria were established. Measurements were made of noise level, reverberation time, speech-intelligibility index (SII), and noise isolation. Noise levels were atypically low in unoccupied buildings with no mechanical ventilation, but excessive in areas near external walls next to noisy external noise sources—especially with windows open for ventilation—and in occupied buildings. Reverberation times were excessive in areas with large volumes and insufficient sound absorption. Speech intelligibility was generally adequate, but speech privacy was inadequate in shared and open-office areas, and into private offices with the doors open for ventilation. Improvement of the acoustical design of ‘green’ buildings must include increasing the external-internal noise isolation and that between workplaces, and the use of adequate sound absorption to control reverberation and noise.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it