MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122834404 · doi:10.1115/imece2006-13325

A Study of Traffic Noise Reduction Performance of Arc Pavement Roads and Traffic Flow

2006· article· en· W2122834404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zheng Lou, Liming Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign Engineering and Computers and Information in Engineering, Parts A and B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Noise reductionArc (geometry)Traffic noiseTraffic flow (computer networking)Reduction (mathematics)Environmental scienceAcousticsEngineeringComputer scienceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asphalt Rubber Concrete (ARC) pavement has shown an excellent performance of noise reduction in terns of reducing the power of air pumping, absorbing sound power, depressing carcass vibration and changing sound reflection geometry. This research is to investigate the traffic noise reduction performance of a segment of test highway with ARC pavement in Saskatchewan, Canada. Before and after the highway section was repaved, a series of traffic noise level measurements combining with traffic flow monitoring are conducted in order to compare the sound performance of ARC and conventional pavements. A relationship between the noise level and corresponding traffic flow conditions of ARC pavement is established. The energetic averaging method is employed to study the relationship between traffic noise level and traffic flow condition. The two noise levels of 24-hour's time averaged and Statistical Pass-By noise levels indicated that the ARC pavement has a better sound performance over that of conventional pavement in terms of traffic noise reduction. The traffic noise reduction applicability of ARC pavement under various traffic flow conditions is also performed in this research.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign Engineering and Computers and Information in Engineering, Parts A and BSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207