Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the area close to the railway vibrations can be expected due to the use of the railway by trains. Especially cargo trains can cause vibrations which can affect the real estate and the well-being of the users of this real estate. Railway vibrations are a complex issue. Passing trains – with persons or cargo – cause vibrations and these vibrations pass through the soil and can eventually reach the buildings in the neighborhood. But there are several parameters which determine if and to what extent a building can be affected by these vibrations: the type of train, the speed of the train, the rail track, the soil and the construction of the buildings in the area close to the railway. Various organizations are involved in the governance of railway vibrations. Transport organizations are responsible for the trains. In the Netherlands ProRail is responsible for the railway. The owner of the grounds next to the railway has (in theory) some responsibility regarding the railway vibrations through his soil. And the project developer that wants to develop new buildings in the area close to the railway has some responsibility. The future users of the buildings (e.g. apartments) in general need a healthy environment to live and to work in. Not only noise but also vibrations cause annoyances which negatively affect the quality of living and working in those buildings. Severe vibrations may also cause damage to buildings or may negatively affect the function of the building (for example a concert hall with the subway under the building). This paper explores the governance of railway vibrations in the Netherlands. The general question that is answered in this paper is: how Dutch legislation, policy and jurisprudence (case law) deals with ‘railway vibrations’ in relation to building and real estate. Also examples are given of the governance of railway vibrations in other countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany. Another, more specific question is, if and how the developer of new real estate close to the railway can be (made) responsible for taking railway vibrations into account in the design phase of the building project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".