MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036598697 · doi:10.1680/jenes.20.00006

Analysis of noise and air pollution in Sambalpur City, India, during Diwali

2020· article· en· W3036598697 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A K Sahu, Priyabrata Pradhan, Chitta Ranjan Mohanty, Madhusmita Pradhan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutionAir pollutionFireworksEnvironmental scienceNoise pollutionParticulatesAir quality indexSulfur dioxideToxicologyPollutantVeterinary medicineEnvironmental engineeringGeographyMeteorologyMedicineBiologyArchaeologyNoise reductionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diwali (or Deepavali) is one of the most glamorous cultural festivals in India. It is the festival of light and is celebrated every year during the month of November with great firework displays. Burning of different fireworks generates acute noise and toxic fumes, which lead to noise and air pollution in the environment. The excessive use of fireworks aggravates the level of air and noise pollution and causes adverse impacts on human health. The present paper assesses the noise pollution and air pollution during Diwali in Sambalpur City, one of the premier cities in the western part of Odisha State in Eastern India. The noise level is measured on Diwali day and is compared with that on normal days. Similarly, air quality is measured on Diwali day and compared with that on normal days (pre-Diwali and post-Diwali). The average equivalent continuous noise levels (L eq ) and noise pollution levels have increased in all areas on Diwali compared with those on non-Diwali days. It is also observed that there is a significant rise of air pollutants, total suspended particulate matter, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) in ambient air due to burning of crackers in Diwali.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207