ACOUSTICAL EVALUATION OF TWO WARDS OF A CANADIAN TEACHING HOSPITAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the acoustical conditions in two wards of a research/teaching hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.The selection of the wards was based on managerial-staff needs and perceptions of issues related to the acoustical working environment with respect to privacy and potential aggressive behaviours.Following meetings with the clinical managers of different care-delivery units, two units were selected: an adult emergency department and a long-term-care unit where the patient population was a mix of elderly with various mental-and physical-health conditions.The evaluation methods included long-term noise measurements, building physical-acoustical measurements, noise dosimetry, and healthcare-staff interviews/questionnaires.In particular, measurements were made of the following physical-acoustical parameters in the facilities: unoccupied and occupied noise level; reverberation time; Speech Intelligibility Index.Results were evaluated by comparing them with acceptability criteria.The identification of non-optimal aspects of the facilities' acoustical environments resulted from the consideration and analysis of staff responses and from comparison with existing guidelines.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".