Sound(scape) consequences of urban decisions: Guidelines for planners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While sound plays a critical role in shaping the urban experience, it is rarely considered proactively in city making. While professionals of the built environment are aware of the importance of sound, they feel ill-equipped to take sound into account in their practice. The present work aims to develop guidelines for professionals of the built environment to initiate a line of reasoning about the sound(scape) consequences of their urban planning decisions. Starting with a review of a current street design guide, we propose short guidelines for professionals of the built environment to consider how urban decisions impact the soundscape. These guidelines will be discussed through interviews with professionals of the built environment to explore how to better tailor them to their needs. We conclude with suggestions on communicating soundscape guidelines.
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 | 0.051 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".