MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403266465 · doi:10.3397/in_2024_3653

On the acceptance limits for short-term level fluctuation of sound calibrators

2024· article· en· W4403266465 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy Hodges, Lixue WU, Triantafillos Koukoulas, Francis DOYON D'AMOUR, Michel Stéphan, Raphaël St-Gelais

Bibliographic record

VenueNOISE-CON proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Sound (geography)Environmental sciencePhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure noise measurement accuracy, sound calibrators are used to check the sound level meter accuracy before and after any such measurements, as required by most noise regulations. The sound calibrator itself needs to be calibrated routinely and traceable to national standards. The International Standard IEC 60942, Electroacoustics - Sound calibrators, specifies performance requirements for the sound pressure level, short-term level fluctuation, frequency, and distortion and associated test methods. However, the acceptance limits for short-term level fluctuation specified in IEC 60942 is problematic. The short-term level fluctuation acceptance limits specified in Table 2 of IEC 60942 for the level variations inherited by a stable sinusoid at low frequencies are either underestimated or overestimated. In this paper, a detailed theoretical analysis is presented addressing this particular issue. Closed-form solutions are obtained for typical sinusoidal sound signals. Two experimental setups and measurement results for the validation of the theoretical analysis are also presented. One uses a commercial sound level meter and the other uses a precision sound pressure measurement system developed recently at the National Research Council Canada. A revised table for the acceptance limits is then proposed for the future revision of Table 2 of IEC 60942.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueNOISE-CON proceedingsSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207