Subjective ranking of footstep and low- frequency impact sounds on lightweight wood-framed floor assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For each of a series of full-scale floor-ceiling assemblies, standard impact measurements were made with the sources defined in ISO 10140 including the tapping machine, the modified tapping machine, and the heavy/soft impact source (rubber ball), dropped from various heights. Additionally, sound recordings were made of the sounds generated by the ball drops and by adult walkers without shoes. The standard impact measurements were used to calculate standardized metrics and non-standardized variants. The recordings of the walkers' footfalls and of the "thumps" resulting from the ball drops were played back in a controlled laboratory room to listening test participants, who subjectively rated the reproduced sounds in terms of relative "annoyance". Preliminary results from 19 bare floors (i.e., no coverings) indicated: that listeners ranked the floor assemblies slightly differently for the walkers than for the ball drops; and that some objective metrics determined from measurements with the standard tapping machine and with the rubber impact ball correlated most highly with the subjective response to both types of impact sounds.
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) | 0.001 | 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".