MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400288460 · doi:10.1121/10.0027141

Tony F. W. Embleton in the Acoustics Section, Physics Division, of the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC)

2024· article· en· W4400288460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony J. Brammer, Gilles A. Daigle, Michael R. Stinson, Floyd E. Toole

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Research councilDivision (mathematics)Library scienceEngineeringPhysicsComputer sciencePhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tony completed his PhD in three years at Imperial College (London) studying under Dr. R.W.B. Stephens. He then joined George Thiessen and Edgar Shaw at NRCC to form the core of what became arguably the most influential and productive research group in acoustics in Canada from the 1960s to the 1980s. An important activity was service to industry, a role Tony embraced by collaborating with industry associations, participating in committees and directing his research activities. Working with George Thiessen, he succeeded in reducing the noise of couch rolls, a major source of noise in paper making, by randomizing the pattern of holes through which air was sucked to dry the paper. Other successful noise control projects included staggered stator blades for gas turbine engines and mufflers for rock drills. Tony made seminal contributions to outdoor sound propagation and refined condenser microphone calibration. In addition to his research and outreach, he found time for professional service to the ASA and CAA, including serving as founding editor of what is now Canadian Acoustics, and to develop standards and mentor younger scientists, He is remembered for his cheerfulness and willingness to provide advice and engage in conversation on any and all topics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207