MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506894789

Addressing low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines

2011· article· en· W1506894789 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brian Howe, Nick McCabe, Ian Bonsma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfrasoundAnnoyanceSetbackAcousticsWind powerNoise (video)Sound pressureEnvironmental scienceSound (geography)TurbineEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsLoudnessElectrical engineeringAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article addresses the low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines. Modem wind turbines produce broadband noise, with the dominant sound source related to turbulence at the trailing edge of the blades. In relation to human perception of the sound, the dominant frequency range is not the low frequency or infrasonic ranges, but low frequency sound will routinely be an audible component of the acoustic impact. Publications by medical professionals indicate that, at the typical setback distances in Ontario. the overall magnitude of the sound pressure levels produced by wind turbine generators does not represent a direct health risk. This includes noise at low and infrasound frequencies. The relationship between the sound level and the prevalence of annoyance is complicated, and is often influenced by other non-acoustic factors. This situation does not relate exclusively to the low frequency component of the audible noise impact of wind turbines.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207