MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054510155 · doi:10.1121/1.1605412

Scale-model study of the effectiveness of highway noise barriers

2003· article· en· W2054510155 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Busch, Murray Hodgson, Clair Wakefield

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBermNoise barrierNoise (video)Scale modelLine sourceOctave (electronics)AcousticsScale (ratio)Materials scienceGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer sciencePhysicsEngineeringNoise reductionAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A scale-model facility was developed to test the insertion loss (IL) of highway noise barriers. Three model materials were utilized to simulate packed-earth berms and ground (expanded polystyrene), vertical walls (dense polystyrene), and roadways (varnished particleboard). Thirty-eight noise-barrier configurations were tested and used to compare how IL varied with changes to the barrier profile for walls, berms, and combinations of walls and berms for receivers at a representative, highway-adjacent location. The atmospheric conditions were assumed to be homogeneous and nonrefracting. Changes of barrier surface impedance were also assessed. A highway line source was simulated by positioning both an air-jet point source and a receiver microphone at a series of equally spaced points, in order to form an array of source-receiver measurement pairs making differing angles of propagation to the noise-barrier crest line. The IL measurement results are presented in unweighted third-octave bands. In addition, total A-weighted insertion losses (ILA) were obtained by applying an A-weighted, traffic-noise spectrum. When a berm was modeled with surface impedance closely matching that of packed earth, it was found that walls outperformed berms by 1 to 2 dBA. When the surface impedance of a berm was modeled to be acoustically soft, the ILA increased sufficiently to favor berms by about 2 dBA. The result for an acoustically soft berm does not support the long-standing practice of assuming that earth berms outperform walls by 3 dBA, but is consistent with the performance predicted by newer prediction algorithms. When the slopes of berms were made shallower, the IL generally decreased for a berm alone, but generally increased in cases with a wall atop the berm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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