MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417049897 · doi:10.1177/10806032251398832

Voice-Calling Detection Distance with a Parabolic Microphone in Land Search and Rescue

2025· article· en· W4417049897 on OpenAlexaff
Warren H. Finlay

Bibliographic record

VenueWilderness and Environmental Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrophoneLoudnessIntelligibility (philosophy)Active listeningRange (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The ability of a 55.9 cm parabolic microphone to increase detection range in search-and-rescue (SAR) sound sweeps for the purpose of responsive lost-person searching was examined. Methods Five SAR personnel listened for 3 random words shouted once by persons simulating a responsive lost person at a target loudness of 88 dB (at 1 m) at various distances in coniferous lodgepole pine and deciduous aspen parkland forests. Intelligibility distance (where 50% of the shouted words were understood) and audibility distance (where 50% of the shouted words were audible but not intelligible), along with visual detection range, were determined. The lost person’s unaided ear audibility of 5 whistle models and 1 portable train horn, blown at each searcher's parabolic microphone audibility distance, was also determined. Results The parabolic microphone significantly increased both intelligibility and audibility distance by an average factor of 1.44 compared with the unaided ear. Intelligibility distance d i pmic with the parabolic microphone was well predicted by the equation <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> <mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mspace width=".1em"/> <mml:mi>p</mml:mi> <mml:mi>m</mml:mi> <mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>8805</mml:mn> <mml:mspace width="0.25em"/> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>e</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.0978</mml:mn> <mml:mspace width="0.25em"/> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>B</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>a</mml:mi> <mml:mi>m</mml:mi> <mml:mi>b</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> , where dB amb is ambient dB at the listening location. Only the portable train horn could be heard by all participants with the unaided ear at the audibility distance of the parabolic microphone. Conclusions The use of a parabolic microphone significantly increased auditory detection range. When combined with the tested portable train horn, our data suggests that SAR sound sweeps for a responsive subject with a parabolic microphone can expect area coverage rates 44% greater than with the unaided ear and approximately 20 times that of visual searching.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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 venueWilderness and Environmental MedicineSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207