MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160906736 · doi:10.1121/10.0040843

Investigating “parasitic noise” in laboratory impact noise testing

2025· article· en· W7160906736 on OpenAlexaff
Wilson Byrick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnclosureHammerSoundproofingNoise (video)Sound pressureDoorsNondestructive testingTapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standardized tapping machine (STM) is a structure-borne noise excitation device, designed to simulate footfall for evaluation of the impact insulation performance of a floor–ceiling assembly, and the resulting Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating. IIC is used to determine the assembly’s suitability for construction in accordance with the minimum acoustic performance requirements of the International Building Code (IBC), requiring a minimum IIC rating of 50 for floor–ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units. The STM generates structure-borne sound via impacts standardized nominally with effective mass of 500 g, impacting the surface at 0.886 m/s, as specified in ASTM E3458-24. This paper examines if “parasitic noise,” defined as airborne sound generated by the hammers of the STM impacting the surface being tested can affect the IIC rating in an ASTM E492 laboratory test environment. Two enclosures are constructed to contain the radiated noise. ASTM E492 testing is performed on the assembly, followed by tests with enclosures surrounding the tapping machine. To assess proximity and loading effects, tests were repeated with shims under the enclosure and with the enclosure suspended by a crane. Sound pressure levels are measured in both the source and receiver rooms for each configuration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207