Approaches for estimating flanking transmission for heavy impact sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flanking transmission exists in all buildings and its importance relative to direct transmission is determined by the quality of the acoustical design. The ISO 10848 standard has been created to provide estimates flanking transmission from airborne and the ISO tapping machine. Currently this method is unproven for impact flanking transmission at low frequencies, especially from heavy/soft impact sources like the 'bang machine' and 'rubber ball' impact sources. This paper assesses three methods. The first and straight forward method obtains results by suppressing all transmission paths except for the one(s) of interest. The second obtains results by using two sets of data (one including the transmission path(s) of interest and the other not) and indirectly assigning the change in transmitted sound power to the path(s) suppressed. The third, a new approach, is presented that is found to be considerably more accurate and easier to apply when flanking elements and junction are symmetric. Results for the various approaches are presented when applied to wood-frame construction, and limitations of each approach are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".