MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6948081300 · doi:10.4224/23002823

Airborne and impact sound insulation data for cold-formed steel-framed walls and floors

2018· report· en· W6948081300 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoistGypsumSoundproofingCeiling (cloud)Framing (construction)Deck

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents the results of an extensive series of direct sound insulation tests of cold-formed steel-framed walls and floors. The direct airborne sound insulation of 30 walls with cold-formed steel framing was measured in accordance with ASTM E90-09. The walls had steel studs with a depth of 92 mm (3-5/8”) or 152 mm (6”), and with a steel thickness of 1.09 mm (0.043”) or 1.37 mm (0.054”). Other parameters that were investigated included the number of layers and thickness of gypsum board, the cavity insulation, the stud spacing, and the use of resilient channels. The test results for some non-standard wall configurations that were tested for research purposes (e.g. for walls with gypsum board on one side only) are also included in this report. The direct airborne and impact sound insulation of 17 floors with cold-formed steel framing was measured in accordance with ASTM E90-09 and ASTM E492-09, respectively. The floors had steel joists with a depth of 254 mm (10”) or 317 mm (12.5”), and with a steel thickness of 1.37 mm (0.054”). The top surface of the floor/ceiling assemblies was composed of a corrugated steel deck with poured gypsum concrete, while the bottom surface was composed of a gypsum board ceiling on resilient channels. The influence of the joist depth and the number of layers and thickness of the ceiling gypsum board was investigated, as well as the influence of several floor coverings (e.g. laminate or carpet). The report presents the detailed specimen descriptions and specimen properties and the results from the standardized tests according to ASTM E90-09 and ASTM E492-09. Brief analyses of the parameters affecting the sound insulation of the steel-framed assemblies are provided. The tests presented in this report were part of a large research study that also included an investigation into the flanking sound transmission in cold-formed steel-framed buildings. The results of that study are described in the NRC Research Report RR-337, “Apparent Sound Insulation in Cold-Formed Steel-Framed Buildings” [1]. The NRC Research Report RR-337 also includes some of the airborne sound insulation results presented here, albeit without listing the detailed specimen descriptions and specimen properties that are provided in this report.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→