MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005867717

Short-term level fluctuation of sound calibrators : measurement methods and their uncertainties

2008· article· en· W7005867717 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound level meterCalibrationMicrophoneNoise (video)Sound pressureMeasurement uncertaintySound (geography)Spectrum analyzerMeasure (data warehouse)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sound calibrator contains a stable sound source that can be coupled to the microphone of a measuring instrument. This allows the calibration of an entire measurement system prior to a measurement. The calibration of the measurement system is so important that many noise regulations specify the requirement of calibration. The sound calibrator itself needs to be calibrated routinely traceable to national standards. The International Standard IEC 60942:2003, Electroacoustics - Sound calibrators, specifies performance requirements for the sound pressure level generated by a sound calibrator, especially the short-term level fluctuation of sound pressure. The aim of this paper is to evaluate several methods proposed for the measurement of fluctuation in the sound pressure level generated by the sound calibrator. Specifically, this paper focuses on the sound level meter method, the analyzer method (using either a FFT analyzer or a set of 1/n octave band filters), and the time capture method. The analysis is emphasized on the key points for implementing IEC 60942:2003. The time capture method implemented at National Research Council Canada has a measurement uncertainty of 0.016 dB, which is better than the maximum permitted expanded uncertainty of measurement for short-term level fluctuation specified in IEC 60942:2003.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207