Estimating traffic noise over a large urban area: An evaluation of methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike air pollution, traffic-related noise remains unregulated and has been under-studied despite evidence of its deleterious health impacts. To characterize population exposure to traffic noise, both acoustic-based numerical models and data-driven statistical approaches can generate estimates over large urban areas. The aim of this work is to formally compare the performances of the most common traffic noise models by evaluating their estimates for different categories of roads and validating them against a unique dataset of measured noise in Long Beach, California. Specifically, a statistical land use regression model, an extreme gradient boosting machine learning model (XGB), and three numerical/acoustic traffic noise models: the US Noise Model (FHWA-TNM2.5), a commercial noise model (CadnaA), and an open-source European model (Harmonoise) were optimized and compared. The results demonstrate that XGB and CadnaA were the most effective models for estimating traffic noise, and they are particularly adept at differentiating noise levels on different categories of road.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.028 | 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 it