MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412871722 · doi:10.1121/10.0037662

ASHRAE RP 1852 toward a unified metric for speech privacy in high-performance buildings: Determination of a suitable metric for both open-plan and closed offices through measurement

2025· article· en· W4412871722 on OpenAlexaff
Roderick C. I. MacKenzie, Rewan Toubar, Joonhee Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversitySoft dB (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsASHRAE 90.1Metric (unit)Plan (archaeology)Computer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringGeographyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various metrics have been developed since the 1960s to measure speech privacy (SP) within office spaces, but have diverged between those intended for open-plan (e.g., Articulation Index, ASTM E1130 or Speech Transmission Index, ISO 3382-3) or those for closed offices/rooms (e.g., Speech Privacy Potential, or Speech Privacy Class, SPC, ASTM E2638). Others (e.g., Speech intelligibility Index, ANSI S3.5) do not have a standardized use in offices. No single metric has been validated for both office types. Furthermore, SII, AI, and STI struggle to differentiate between unintelligibility and inaudibility, while SPC’s relationship to distraction and use in open plan is underexplored. This ASHRAE-funded research project (RP 1852) aimed to determine and validate a single metric and method for both space types to accurately rate or predict SP (in terms of audibility, intelligibility, and distraction). 308 open-plan workstations and 44 closed rooms (private offices and meeting rooms) across 5 sites were assessed using the aforementioned metrics and associated methods and variants thereof. Statistical analysis of 1312 open-plan and 1532 closed room measurements reveals the relations between SP metrics. Effects of source/receiver locations and room boundaries are described. The strengths and weaknesses are discussed, with ultimately the SPC being the strongest candidate for a unifying metric across spaces.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207