MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018769292

Errors when using façade measurements of incident aircraft noise

2002· article· en· W7018769292 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de la Défense NationaleTransport Canada
KeywordsMicrophoneAircraft noiseNoise (video)Anechoic chamberAmbient noise levelBackground noiseAirplaneSoundproofingNoise measurement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the problem of measuring incident aircraft noise when validating predictions of indoor aircraft noise levels from free-field outdoor levels such as those obtained from airport noise level contours. Both ASTM E966 and ISO 140/V indicate that the incident outdoor noise for measurements of the sound insulation of building facades can be obtained using microphones positioned at the building façade. Measurements of the incident aircraft noise at the façade and in the free field indicate that this can lead to large differences from simple expectations. This paper presents the results of measurements of aircraft passbys showing the variations in the incident sound levels as a function of the aircraft elevation. These were related to the effects of diffraction from the building façade as well as to the effects of ground reflections. This interpretation was confirmed both mathematically and using a scale model façade in an anechoic room. It was concluded that more general and easier to interpret estimates of incident sound levels can be obtained from free field measurements than from façade-mounted microphone measurements.

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)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207