Construction Details Affecting Flanking Transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement phase of a three-year project at the National Research Council Canada to study flanking transmission in wood-framed construction under controlled conditions was recently completed. The focus was horizontal and vertical flanking paths involving the wall/floor junction in multifamily buildings built to resist wind or seismic loads. This paper reports on the effect of joist orientation (relative to the wall/floor junction), junction blocking details, joist type (solid lumber vs. wood-I joists), and wall framing (double stud, single stud or single stud shear walls) for airborne excitation. Significant effects were observed between rooms separated by the partition wall when subfloor continuity across the junction was changed, when joist orientation was changed from parallel to the wall to perpendicular, and when wall framing was changed from single to double stud. For both horizontally and vertically separated rooms, the dominant flanking path typically involves the floor surface, if it is simply a layer of plywood or oriented strand board. Data are presented showing the effectiveness of toppings to control flanking transmission involving the bare floor. (INTER-NOISE companion paper - ###################################################### #########################################). Estimates of the flanking sound insulation for the various paths are compared and their importance ranked. 1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".