MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224920211 · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2022.103274

Aircraft noise and environmental equity in Montréal: A comparison of noise indicators and an analysis of the impacts of COVID-19

2022· article· en· W4224920211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Audrin, Philippe Apparicio, Anne‐Marie Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusAircraft noiseLogistic regressionGeographyMetropolitan areaPopulationNoise (video)Noise exposureCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)StatisticsEconometricsDemographyComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From an environmental equity perspective, the aim of this paper is twofold. First, we want to verify to what extent vulnerable population groups resided in areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2019 and 2020) in the Montréal census metropolitan area. Second, we want to identify whether the use of an aircraft noise indicator rather than another generates significant variations in the results and consequently in terms of affected areas and populations. With the IMPACT web-application, we model aircraft noise contours from three cumulative (Lden, Ldn, Laeq,24h) and a single-event (LAmax) metrics. The model’s input data are retrieved by a website for flight tracking. Next, four variables are extracted from the 2016 Statistics Canada census at a fine scale level (dissemination areas): that is, the percentages of low-income individuals, visible minorities, children under 15 years old, and individuals aged 65 and over. The results show a significant drop in population exposed to aircraft noise in 2020 compared to 2019. In addition, the estimates of populations impacted by aircraft noise differ from one indicator to the next. The logistic regression models indicate that the inequities are inconsistent between cumulative and single-event metrics.

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)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Part D Transport and EnvironmentSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207