MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945132883 · doi:10.1289/isee.2014.o-266

Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep Results of a Pilot Study and Design of a Quasi-Experimental Investigation

2014· article· en· W2945132883 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActigraphySleep (system call)Wind powerSleep onset latencyMedicineNoise (video)AudiologyPsychologyDemographyPhysical therapySleep disorderEngineeringComputer scienceInsomniaPsychiatryElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207