MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403272508 · doi:10.3397/in_2024_4289

Preliminary study on active control of double-glazing with pressure compensation using an in-cavity microphone

2024· article· en· W4403272508 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan MIFUNDU NZENGI, Pierre Grandjean, Philippe Micheau, Alain Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueNOISE-CON proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlazingCompensation (psychology)MicrophoneAcousticsMaterials scienceSound pressurePhysicsPsychologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhancing the sound insulation in double-glazed units involves actively controlling inter-glazing cavity pressure to decouple each glass. The optimal strategy to maximize transmission loss requires loudspeakers in the cavity to generate anti-noise and error microphones in the reception room, outside of the cavity. However, this configuration is not suitable for a standalone product where out-of-cavity microphones are not allowed. This study presents an original method to experimentally learn the control of one loudspeaker with one error microphone, both inside the cavity, in order to maximize acoustic isolation in a low-frequency band. The method requires a compensation FIR filter, experimentally identified during a learning phase when an optimal command is applied. Experiments were conducted using an active symmetrical double-glazed unit (30.4 x 30.6 cm, 6 mm thick, 60 mm apart cavities) in a "waveguide" setup. Results show an average transmission loss gain from 50 to 550 Hz of 10 dB with in-cavity microphone compensation. It nearly reaches optimal performance, 11 dB reduction in transmitted waves, compared to 7 dB for the uncompensated in-cavity microphone. This encouraging preliminary result leads to further developments to extend the method to multiple loudspeakers and multiple microphones.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOISE-CON proceedingsSame topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207