A Study of the Ambient Noise in the Public Space on Campus and the Correlation Between the Campus Crowds’ Ambient Noise and the WiFi Log
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban noise is becoming more serious and increasingly concerning environmental problems. This has led to numerous studies on traffic noise. However, not many studies have been done on noise from a human perspective as they go about their daily life. In another aspect, using of the crowd-sourcing platform is on the rise as the usage of personal devices (smartphones) and the deployment of Internet-of-thing increases. Thus, a large pool of data collected via mobile applications enables users to measure the environmental factor directly and provide immediate feedback for and community’s greater good. In this paper, we utilize the crowd-sourcing platform to collect noise data by volunteers to study the noise level in a campus environment, in open common areas which are frequented by students. We are able to map out the noise across the campus from the perspective of the students. The noise level increase through the day as the student gather around popular open spaces. Our study shows that the sound level on campus is due mainly to human and mechanical noise. By combining the noise data with WiFi log data, we were able to show a good correlation between sound level and human density in an area
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".