MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117299495 · doi:10.61782/fa.2025.0958

Virtual and experimental acoustical comfort testers for earplugs

2025· article· W7117299495 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Franck Sgard, Kévin Carillo, Simon Kersten, Robin Richert, Olivier Doutres

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsNoise (video)Feature (linguistics)Focus (optics)Component (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earplugs are widely used to prevent noise-induced hearing loss, but discomfort can reduce their effectiveness by affecting their consistent and proper use.Earplug comfort can be described by four dimensions: physical (biomechanical and thermal interactions with the earcanal), acoustical (noise/useful sound perception), functional (usability and efficiency), and psychological (well-being and satisfaction).(Dis)comfort results from the interplay within the user/earplug/work environment triad.The components of this triad and their interactions across multiple phases, ultimately shape the comfort judgment and are defined by various physical and psychological characteristics that must be assessed to fully understand comfort.This paper targets acoustical characteristics of both disposable and reusable earplugs when inserted in the earcanal, focusing on indicators such as sound attenuation and occlusion effect.It presents a synthesis of various acoustic comfort testers developed by the authors' research team to assess these characteristics.Virtual and physical truncated realistic artificial ears and whole head are explored.This research aims to provide manufacturers with comfort-driven design methods for earplugs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207