MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120615209 · doi:10.1121/1.4934020

A proposed test of some people's ability to sense wind turbines without hearing or seeing them

2015· article· en· W2120615209 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul D. Schomer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerTurbineSense (electronics)Test (biology)Power (physics)SituatedComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Simple (philosophy)AcousticsAudiologyAeronauticsElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineeringGeologyMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Around the world, there are people that allege they sense times when significant power is being generated by a turbine from when little to no power is being generated. In contrast, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its Canadian counterpart (CanWEA) maintain that this is not possible, without these people hearing the turbines or seeing them move. A simple test can quickly clarify these opposing views. Notionally, people who live in residences situated beyond the threshold of hearing (indoors) would be tested in the area that they can sense the wind turbines. They would be told to tell the proctor when they sensed the turbine at power. They would be told the turbine might or might not be turned on in the next X hours. The area of the house they were in would have to be free of any visible or audible clues. No communication would be permitted between the subject and the outside world. The proctor also would not know when or if the turbine would come on. These and other controls like these would make for a quick, simple, unbiased test of some people’s ability to sense wind turbines without hearing or seeing them.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207