MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185722823 · doi:10.3808/jei.201300236

Interval Binary Programming Model for Noise Control Within an Urban Environment

2013· article· en· W2185722823 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterval (graph theory)Noise (video)Mathematical optimizationBinary numberComputer scienceNoise controlSelection (genetic algorithm)Extension (predicate logic)Process (computing)Noise reductionLinear programmingControl (management)Reduction (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces an interval binary programming (IBP) method to the selection of control measures for noise reduction under uncertainty, by incorporating the concepts of interval numbers and interval mathematical programming into a binary programming optimization framework. As an extension of the binary programming method, IBP can explicitly address complexities and uncertainties in a noise control system. Parameters in the IBP model can be expressed as intervals, and uncertainties are effectively incorporated within the model solution process. The modelling approach is applied to a representative control measure selection problem for noise reduction in an urban environment. Results of the application indicate that useful solutions for noise control practices can be generated. A number of decision alternatives have been obtained and analyzed under different acceptable noise levels for two communities, and they reflect complex tradeoffs between environmental and economic considerations.

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.

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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.166 · 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