MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051475566

Outdoor Concert Noise: The Kitchener, Ontario Experience

2017· article· en· W7051475566 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionOutdoor music festivals are socially, culturally and economically important to the communities that host them.However, sound generated by these events, have the potential to disturb surrounding noise-sensitive environs, especially area residents.Sensitivities depend on many factors, including but not limited to duration, audibility of the event, type of music, and even non-acoustic associations of the concert and duration.Truly, one person's music can be another person's noise.The challenge facing municipalities and promotors holding these events, is to provide sufficiently high-level sound reinforcement to meet patron audio quality expectations while keeping off-site sound levels sufficiently low, to avoid disturbing surrounding communities.Since 2015, an Electronic Dance Music (EDM) event, the EverAfter Music Festival has been held in Kitchener, Ontario in early June.Inaugurally, a two-day (Friday -Saturday) event, the festival was extended to three-days (Friday-Sunday) in 2016 and 2017.During, the three-year history of the event, noise complaints to the City of Kitchener Noise-By-law Office have varied significantly, with little or no complaints in 2016, while 57 complaints were received in 2015 and about twice as many in 2017.The complaint history, and key characteristics of the EverAfter event are summarized below: Total (complaints) -2015: (57), 2016: (7), 2017: (130).Concert duration (days) -2015 (2), 2016 & 2017 (3).Multi-stage concert -all years.Main stage orientation -2015 (south), other years (east).Performances -1100 h to 2300 h (headliners -2030 h).High SPL / low frequency program -120 dBA @ 140 ft.Some surrounding locales in semi urban areas bordering farm and ravine lands.The City granted a Noise-by-law exemption, with festival sound levels limited to 65 dBA at any residences.Given the complaint record, can the variability be explained and are there approaches available to help provide greater event compatibility with residents' concerns?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207