Sound Propagation in a Simulated "Team-Style" Open Office
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents measurements undertaken to quantify the importance of speaker orientation and surface reflectivity of workstation surfaces on sound attenuation in the open 'team-style' offices using a simulated office in the anechoic chamber at IRC. The measurements were made on behalf of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). This report is the fifth in a series. The first report1 presents measurements of sound propagation made in nine offices. The second report2 presents measurements of speech levels in the offices. Background information on open office acoustics can be found in the third report.3 The fourth report presents more controlled measurements of sound attenuation over screens in the laboratory.4 The sixth report5 presents measurements of the average sound field around the heads of human talkers.Sound attenuation was measured by positioning a Bruel and Kjaer Head and Torso Simulator (HTS) sound source at one corner of the open 'team-style' office and measuring the sound levels received at two positions at the opposite corners. The validity of using the HTS in the current study is well supported by the study on the directivities of human speakers. Results from that study showed that the HTS has a directivity that is similar to that of a human speaker.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".