MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981790727 · doi:10.1121/1.4744732

The International-INCE Technical Initiatives: An overview

2001· article· en· W1981790727 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gilles A. Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Noise controlScope (computer science)Work (physics)General assemblyRecreationProcess (computing)Computer scienceBusinessOperations researchPolitical scienceEngineeringLawNoise reductionMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At Inter-Noise 91 in Sydney, Australia, the International Institute of Noise Control Engineering (I-INCE) Board took the first steps to enlarge the scope of the General Assembly’s activities. In particular, the need for technical initiatives to address noise issues of international interest was recognized. Such issues usually involve important policy matters, but the focus is on technical details. The following year in Toronto, Canada, the Board authorized studies on two topics, upper noise limits in working environments and the effect of regulations on road vehicle noise, to be carried out by the General Assembly. Two further initiatives, community noise and noise barriers, were approved in subsequent years. To date, the Technical Initiatives Program has produced two final reports and one draft report. At the 1999 General Assembly in Fort Lauderdale, FL, four new technical initiatives were approved, noise policies and regulations, noise control for schoolrooms, noise from outdoor recreational activities, and noise labels for products. A fifth initiative was added by the General Assembly in Nice, France, on the topic of noise as a global policy issue. This work will give an overview of the objectives and process of the I-INCE Technical Initiatives Program.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207