MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132513021

Impact noise annoyance amongst seniors aging in place

2020· article· en· W7132513021 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeffrey Mahn, Markus Mueller-Trapet, Iara Batista da Cunha, Hiroshi Sato, Susumu Hirakawa, Manabu Chikai

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnoyanceDemographicsNoise (video)Healthy agingQuality of life (healthcare)PreferenceAging in placeNoise pollution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demographics of countries such as Canada and Japan continue to shift to a higher percentage of seniors and many of those seniors prefer to age in place in their own homes or communities. An important aspect of aging in place includes staying healthy and the acoustic environment of the dwelling plays a role. The preference to age in place coupled with increasing densification of city centers means that many people will be aging in place in multi-tenancy dwellings. Different people show different degrees of annoyance due to neighbor noise, especially impact noise and it is desirable to include limits on impact noise that consider those aging in place in the acoustic requirements of building codes. This paper describes a collaboration between the National Research Council Canada and the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology to evaluate the living comfort of the acoustical environment for the elderly population. The study will evaluate the subjective annoyance of elderly participants in comparison to the general population. The results of the evaluations are expected to reveal the annoyance levels in aging populations due to impact noise to develop a regulatory framework for the sound quality of residential dwellings in age-friendly communities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207