Updating ISO 1996-1: Standardizing on the Community Tolerance Level for evaluating long-term noise annoyance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ISO 1996-1 standard, “Acoustics—Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise, Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures” provides, in part, methodologies used to evaluate long-term noise annoyance. Prior to 2016, this was done using a sigmoid fit to the Schultz curve where the day-night sound level (Ldn) was adjusted to account for the effects of sound characteristics on the percentage of highly annoyed. As part of the ongoing ISO 1996-1 revision, the ISO working group is considering focusing noise annoyance assessment on the Community Tolerance Level (CTL). This is a minor modification in that the new sigmoid curve is based on loudness, but it explicitly suggests that community-related parameters are important to annoyance. These approaches make it easier to compare different communities’ tolerance to noise using a single number descriptor. It will also discuss approaches other than CTL and where these may be appropriate. This paper will describe our consideration of this approach, the benefits of using CTL for standardized comparisons, level adjustments, and other sound sources and characteristics
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".