MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6948118998 · doi:10.4224/23000205

Measurement of airborne sound insulation of 8 wall assemblies measurement of airborne and impact sound insulation of 29 floor assemblies

2015· report· en· W6948118998 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundproofingSound transmission classSound (geography)Ground floorSound pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following report contains the Transmission Loss (TL) results measured in accordance with ASTM E90-09 of 8 cross-laminated timber (CLT) wall assemblies and the TL results and normalized impact sound pressure level results measured in accordance with ASTM E492-09 of 26 CLT floor assemblies and 3 glulam floor assemblies. Reference tables containing the specimen number, sketch, short description, rating(s) as well as the page number of all the assemblies tested are found starting on page 16. The wall assemblies were built and tested between November and December 2014. The specimen descriptions and the reported mass per area of the 8 wall assemblies that were previously published under report numbers A1-006070.1 to A1-006070.8 have been revised in this report. The floor assemblies were built and tested between December 2014 and June 2015. The specimen description and the reported mass per area of floor specimen A1-006070-11F that were previously published under report number A1-006070.9 have been revised 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→