Acoustical evaluation of residential laneways and laneway housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laneway housing (LWH), a free-standing, small wood-frame house (1 to 1.5 stories high and less than 900sf in floor area), is an increasingly popular product of Vancouver B.C.’s high-density urban growth policy. LWH is subject to multiple noise concerns due to its small architectural form and siting in laneways typically designed for garage access and utilities. (Laneways are approximately 16 ft wide and 12 to 18 ft high.) Case study investigations examined residential laneways as potential urban canyons and the acoustical performance of LWH envelope. Methods employed include ASTM field measurements, software models (Odeon and AFMG Soundflow), and the National Research Council of Canada traffic noise model (comparable to the FHWA model). Metrics evaluated include rate of attenuation over propagation distance through a laneway, façade transmission loss, and room absorption. Results show that certain laneways function as urban canyons, measuring nearly 20 dBA higher in SPL at the LWH façade than in laneways without urban canyon characteristics. Indoor SPL due to traffic noise transmitting through the building envelope were above 45 dBA. At least half of the case studies investigated did not meet noise criteria for residential health. These investigations emphasize the need for acoustical specifications in design and construction guidelines for LWH.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".