MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400288268 · doi:10.1121/10.0027356

Ontario Class 4 classification

2024· article· en· W4400288268 on OpenAlexaffabout
Giuseppe Garro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks introduced the Class 4 noise area classification for land-use planning applications in 2013. A Class 4 classification is used in special cases where new noise sensitive developments are proposed in proximity to existing, lawfully established stationary noise source(s). This infrequently used classification is typically applied for in-fill developments in urban settings where land-use compatibility concerns are common. This work summarizes the Class 4 design criteria and discusses the practical implementation of the classification in the context of land-use planning.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.020

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→