MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246722240 · doi:10.1121/1.4800434

Estimation of ideal open-cavity middle-ear responses from responses with partial cavity opening

2013· article· en· W4246722240 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Maftoon, W. Robert J. Funnell, Sam J. Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle earTransfer functionIdeal (ethics)Cavity wallMechanicsAcousticsPhysicsMathematicsOpticsMathematical analysisMaterials scienceAnatomyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important step in developing mathematical models of the middle ear is the validation of simplified models without the middle-ear air cavity. However, open-cavity experimental results are often collected with only a partial opening of the middle-ear cavity, due to experimental limitations. The partial opening introduces a relatively sharp minimum that obscures features of the frequency response in its neighbourhood. In this study we suggest a numerical method for estimating ideal open-cavity responses from experimental results with partial openings. We fit rational-fraction polynomials to portions of the response in order to parametrically identify the transfer function associated with the sharp minimum. The ideal open-cavity response is then estimated by dividing the experimentally measured frequency response by the identified anti-resonance transfer function. The method has been validated against synthesized transfer functions with features similar to those caused by partial opening of the cavity and against responses calculated using models of the middle ear with a partially open cavity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207