Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep Results of a Pilot Study and Design of a Quasi-Experimental Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep – Results of a Pilot Study and Design of a Quasi-Experimental InvestigationAbstract Number:2766 Philip Bigelow*, James Lane Philip Bigelow* University of Waterloo, Canada, E-mail Address: [email protected] and James Lane University of Waterloo, Canada, E-mail Address: [email protected] AbstractWind power facilities are becoming more common across Canada despite concerns over potential health effects from exposure to noise. It is hypothesized that impacts of wind turbines result primarily from exposure to noise which causes sleep disruption leading to increased stress. In order to develop a protocol to test the hypothesis of a causal link between wind turbine noise and sleep quality, we conducted a pilot study that utilized sleep actigraphy, sleep diaries, and sound level meters. Measures of sleep quality were obtained from 12 participants from a wind turbine community in rural Ontario and 10 participants from a comparison community with no wind power installations. Sound pressure levels were recorded simultaneously in participants' bedrooms. A total of 110 person-nights and 12,971 sleep epochs were observed. Although numerous actigraphy sleep parameters were poorer in the exposed group, including lower average sleep efficiency (89% vs. 92%), longer sleep onset latency (6 min vs. 4 min), and longer wake after sleep onset (42 min vs. 29 min), the differences were not statistically significant. Prevalence of poor sleep in the exposed group was greater than in the unexposed group (22 vs. 11 per 100 person-nights), although the difference were not statistically significant (after adjustment for age and sex). Data obtained from sleep diaries were consistent with actigraphy findings and overall there were no differences in self-reported sleep quality between the exposed an unexposed groups. The full study will be a natural experiment in which residents of a community where a wind turbine facility is planned will be assessed prior to installation of turbines and then tested again post installation. Portable polysomnography (PSG), along with actigraphy and sleep diaries will be used to collect information on sleep. Noise measurements collected simultaneously will allow analyses that will correlate various metrics of noise dose with changes in sleep parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".