Overview of the acoustics and psychoacoustics of reverse alarms installed on moving vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audible alarms are often used on mobile equipment to alert nearby workers of safety risks, in particular with reversing vehicles. A prompt reaction to the alert is required but depends on many technical factors (e.g., mounting location on vehicle), acoustic factors (e.g., alarm emission level, sound propagation pattern behind the vehicle) and psychoacoustic factors (e.g., perceived urgency, ability to localize alarm, effect of hearing loss and hearing protection). These factors are not fully addressed in applicable regulations or standards. This paper presents an overview of the main results of a series of research studies carried out as a collaborative effort by the "Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail" in Montreal and the University of Ottawa in the past twelve years. A main objective was to compare the relative benefits of two types of alarm signals, the widely-used conventional tonal signal and the relatively recent, but emerging, broadband signal. Overall, results indicate that the broadband alarm presents some benefits such as more uniform acoustic propagation patterns, lower alarm reaction thresholds and better sound localization compared to the tonal alarm. The latter two advantages are emphasized when hearing protectors are worn.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".