MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509377384

Effects of Traffic Density on Measured Sound Levels – A Case Study

2016· article· en· W2509377384 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ian Matthew, Anthony Amarra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecibelMorningTraffic noiseSound (geography)Noise (video)Sound exposureAmbient noise levelAcousticsCritical distanceEnvironmental scienceSound energyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsNoise reductionPhysicsSound power
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In road noise prediction algorithms/models, it is commonly accepted that the sound emission from a road segment (the cumulative sound output from a stream of moving vehicles) increases at a rate of 3 decibels for each doubling in the number of vehicles passing the measurement point within a given period of time.  In essence, this corresponds to a doubling of the emitted sound energy for a doubling in the vehicle count.  This relationship is intuitively correct and has been proven accurate for various road noise models in use today.  This results in a daily sound emission pattern which typically peaks during the busiest hours of the day (morning and afternoon “rush” hours) and is lower during those hours for which traffic is reduced. However, consider the resultant daily sound emission pattern when the vehicular density commonly exceeds the critical density for a given roadway.  By way of case study, this paper examines a 72-hour measurement window at receptor points adjacent to the Don Valley Parkway in the City of Toronto – a roadway which commonly exceeds the critical vehicular density.  The study examines the true daily sound emission pattern for this specific traffic scenario.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207