Vibration response of floors and the effectiveness of toppings to control flanking transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A companion paper in INTER-NOISE 2002 [1] has shown that to achieve adequate soundinsulation in many wood frame constructions, it is necessary to control flanking transmissioninvolving the subfloor. This paper examines the effectiveness of toppings to control bothairborne and impact flanking paths involving the floor surface. Factors such as surfacedensity, hardness, presence and type of interlayer are systematically examined and found tobe significant factors. The change in flanking sound insulation due to adding a topping isshown to be different for paths where energy propagates perpendicular to the joists, comparedto those where energy propagates parallel to the joists. Floor vibration mappings reveal that atopping will change not only the power injected but also the propagation losses across thefloor. The most effective toppings reduce input power and increase propagation lossesrelative to the bare floor. One type of topping exhibits significant improvement in theflanking sound insulation in one direction and a significant worsening in the other. Theresults are used to establish the basis for a semi-empirical model for flanking transmission instructures with very high internal losses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".