A hierarchy of flanking transmission paths in lightweight wood frame construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flanking transmission exists in all buildings. The importance of flanking transmission, in determining the apparent sound insulation experienced by occupants of multi-family dwellings, is established by the quality of the acoustical design. This paper examines the hierarchy of airborne flanking paths that might be expected in lightweight wood framed row or terraced construction. From this review of flanking paths in constructions without acoustical treatments, it is evident that the apparent sound insulation is determined by a relatively small number of paths. The hierarchy of paths can be described in two conceptual levels. The first and highest level is that of the sum of paths involving a particular junction. (There are typically four flanking junctions – one for each edge of the nominally separating wall or floor assembly.) The second is a lower level where individual paths are examined. With knowledge of the hierarchy, and hence the dominant path(s), it is possible to develop design strategies for attaining the desired level of airborne sound insulation. With additional information on the cost of various treatments design trade-offs can be evaluated which can lead to multi-family dwellings with high sound insulation that do not have increased cost.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".