MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980804484

Criteria for acoustic comfort in open-plan offices

2004· article· en· W6980804484 on OpenAlexafffundvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersPublic Works and Government Services Canada
KeywordsIntelligibility (philosophy)Ambient noise levelNoise (video)Background noiseSpeech communication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarizes new subjective studies to better define conditions required for acceptable speech privacy and acceptable noise levels in conventional open-plan offices. Achieving both of these goals will lead to satisfactory acoustic comfort in open office environments. Ambient noise levels of about 45 dBA are judged to be most preferred in the presence of speech from an adjacent workstation, and these ambient noise levels should not exceed 48 dBA. Speech privacy is usually related to values of the Articulation Index (AI) or its replacement the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). Acceptable speech privacy is usually said to require SII=0.20. Extensive speech intelligibility tests of simulated open office conditions show that it is only below this SII value that speech privacy is substantially improved. Together, these two criteria (background noise - 45 dBA and SII=0.20) lead to the best possible compromise for achieving satisfactory acoustic comfort in an open-plan office.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207