Assessing community noise annoyance: Two decades of the international technical specification ISO/TS 15666:2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The robust assessment of noise annoyance is of key importance given that it is the most prevalent community response in populations exposed to environmental noise. In 1993, the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise Community Response to Noise team began formalizing a standardized methodology for assessing noise annoyance, which resulted in reporting guidelines and recommendations later published as a Technical Specification (TS) by the International Standards Organization in 2003 (ISO/TS 15666: 2003). This TS, intended to inform the international community on the quantification of the exposure-response relationship between noise exposure and annoyance, has been in circulation for nearly two decades and has been updated in 2021 (ISO/TS 15666: 2021) by an international working group (ISO TC43/SC1/WG62). This paper reviews use of the 2003 TS, identifies common adaptations in use, and summarizes the revisions. Methodological issues arising from the use of the 5-point verbal and the 11-point numeric scale questions and the scoring of “highly annoyed” are discussed. The revisions are designed to encourage further standardization in noise annoyance research. This paper highlights research needs that if addressed would strengthen the methodology underlying the assessment of noise annoyance, including multidimensional assessments of annoyance.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".