MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002859636 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31048

Innovation in Noise Mapping in Natural Gas Compressor Stations

2010· article· en· W2002859636 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. K. Botros, A. Hawryluk, J. Geerligs, Ba-Phuc Huynh, R. Phernambucq

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Nova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas compressorNoise (video)AcousticsEnvironmental scienceInletComputer scienceCompressor stationNatural gasMarine engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noise is generated at gas turbine-based compressor stations from a number of sources, including turbomachinery (gas turbines and compressors), airflow through inlet ducts and scrubbers, exhaust stacks, aerial coolers, and auxiliary systems. Understanding these noise sources is necessary to ensure that the working conditions on site are safe and that the audible noise at neighbouring properties is acceptable. Each noise source has different frequency content, and the overall sound pressure level (OSPL) at any location in the station yard or inside the compressor building is the result of a superposition of these noise sources. This paper presents results of multiple-point spectral noise measurements at three of TransCanada’s compressor stations on the Alberta System. A method is described to determine the overall noise map of the station yard using Delaunay Triangulation and Natural-Neighbour Interpolation techniques. The results are presented in OSPL maps, as well as animated pictures of the sound pressure level (SPL) in frequency domain which will be shown on a video at the conference. The latter will be useful in future work to determine the culprit sources and the respective dominant frequency range that contributes the most to the OSPL.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVehicle Noise and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207