Noise and the city: Leveraging crowdsourced big data to examine the spatio-temporal relationship between urban development and noise annoyance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noise is one of the most frequent complaints and represents a public health hazard. While traffic-related noise has been studied extensively, research on construction noise has been lacking. In this study, we examined the relationship between construction activities and noise annoyance and tested whether this relationship is stronger after working hours. Data were drawn from a historical inventory of major development projects and crowdsourced citizen complaints data (311 calls) in Vancouver, Canada from 2011 to 2016. Mixed effects models were developed with an interaction between construction activities and after-hours report. Results show that neighborhood noise complaints were significantly associated with major constructions (IRR = 1.062, 95% CI = 1.024–1.097). A significant interaction effect was also found between construction activities and after-hours reporting (IRR = 1.050 CI = 1.012–1.087). To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to empirically show the adverse effects of urban development on noise annoyance. The results imply that existing noise bylaws may not be effective in restricting construction activities at night and during sleeping hours, which may cause adverse health effects.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it