MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253606203 · doi:10.1121/1.4801064

Wind Farm - Long term noise and vibration measurements

2013· article· en· W4253606203 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Meunier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerNoise (video)TurbineVibrationRenewable energyEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringHydroelectricityWind speedEngineeringComputer scienceMeteorologyAcousticsElectrical engineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the energy produced in Quebec comes from renewable sources. The concept of wind energy emerged in the late 1990's and has since become a complementary source of energy alongside hydroelectricity. Wind farms are generally seen as a good sustainable way to produce energy. However, they are not implemented without some impact on the environment. SNC-Lavalin Environment has performed many surveys in recent years for wind farm projects, including noise measurements both before and after their commissioning. This presentation will give an overview of one such project where long term noise and vibration measurements where conducted. Vibration measurements, as well as outdoor, indoor and low frequencies noise measurements were completed both with and without the wind turbines in operation. Data will be presented showing different problems encountered in the analysis phase. For example, multiple intermittent and non-steady noise sources were present during measurement (wind turbines, car pass-bys, wind in the trees, human activities). Methods used to overcome these obstacles will be discussed (use of statistical parameters, linear regression), and the effect of the wind turbine operation on the noise level (including low frequencies) and vibration level will be presented.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207