MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400862758 · doi:10.3397/nc_2024_0007

Wake Stone Quarry Expansion: An acoustical and legal saga win

2024· article· en· W4400862758 on OpenAlexaff
Erich Steffen Thalheimer, Jacob Poling

Bibliographic record

VenueNOISE-CON proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeGeologyArchaeologyForensic engineeringSeismologyEngineeringHistoryAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wake Stone Quarry in Cary, North Carolina, has been in operation for over 50 years excavating aggregate rock and gravel for roadways and concrete mixtures. Their initial open mining pit was nearly exhausted, so they sought permission from the State to begin a second pit on their existing property. Unfortunately, opposition came from the heavily politically connected non-profit Umstead State Park that abuts the quarry's property. To Wake Stone's dismay, their application was arbitrarily and capriciously denied. What should have been a simple and straight-forward permit application turned into four years of intense acoustical and environmental studies eventually ending up in court. The main point of contention was noise potentially impacting the adjacent park, which was complicated all the more by the applicable state law being worded only qualitatively as "the applicant will not have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly owned park, forest or recreation area". The stakes were very high; estimated at a future value of $500 million for Wake Stone. With WSP's assistance, including providing acoustical expert witness testimony in a lengthy two-week trial, Wake Stone eventually won their lawsuit and overturned the State's permit denial.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOISE-CON proceedingsSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207