Canadian Acoustics / Acoustique Canadienne 18(3) 15-27 (1990) EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT LIMITS OF TRANSDUCER MOUNTINGS IN THE GROUND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distortion of ground vibration measurements by different methods for mounting transducers in the ground is investigated experimentally. The following mountings are considered: (i) Tapered stake having cruciform cross-section; (ii) Wood plate attached to the ground with threaded thin rods; and (iii) Embedded aluminum box of density equivalent to that of soil. The frequency range over which acceptable measurements of ground vibrations can be made is determined for each of these mountings using frequency response tests. These tests are performed by lightly impacting the mounting with a small instrumented hammer. The impact force and the response of the mounting were recorded and analyzed on a two-channel frequency analyzer. Tests were performed at two sites: stiff clay and fine loose sand. Results show that the frequency limit for acceptable accuracy was about 200 Hz for the plate and stake mountings, whereas that for the embedded box mounting was about 120 Hz. The plate and stake mountings were found more convenient to use than the embedded box
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.023 |
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".