Bibliographic record
Abstract
A laneway house (LWH), permitted under Vancouver B.C.’s high-density urban growth policy, is a free-standing, small wood-frame house typically less than 1.5 stories high and averaging approximately 650sf in floor area. LWH may require special attention for acoustical design due to its small architectural form and siting within the urban noise environment. Façades from six laneway houses in Vancouver were examined for sound insulation performance and compliance with CMHC residential criteria. The methods of investigation included ASTM field measurements, the CMHC/NRC road traffic noise algorithms for housing, and AFMG Soundflow with laboratory data. Sound transmission loss metrics, quantified from the various methods, were compared and discussed. Depending on the method applied, less than half of the case studies investigated met noise criteria for residential health. Design and construction factors contributing to low sound isolation of the LWH façades were explored and discussed. This study emphasized the need for acoustical design tools, specifications and guidelines for LWH, and for acoustical awareness in the design of compact dwellings in high density urban contexts. Keywords: small building, laneway housing, transmission loss, sound isolation, sound insulation, façade, wall assembly, building envelop, windows, glazed doors, CMHC, road traffic noise, wood frame, residential noise criteria
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".