MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W137101445 · doi:10.2166/wst.2001.0542

Agricultural odours: 25 years of reducing complaints about barns and manure storages using the minimum distance separation formulae

2001· article· en· W137101445 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hugh W. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockBarnAgricultureAgricultural scienceManurePoultry farmingRural areaBusinessGeographyAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsAgronomyForestryBiologyEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario in Canada has a diverse livestock and poultry industry. Two million of Ontario's eleven million residents live in rural areas, but only 5% live on livestock and poultry farms, being outnumbered by their rural, non-livestock neighbours by 20:1. The increasing size, complexity, specialisation and concentration of livestock and poultry farms coupled with rural neighbours who have little or no family or business connection to them has resulted in an escalation in the number of odour complaints about barn and manure storage locations. Ontario-developed Minimum Distance Separation I and II formulae have helped site over 100,000 non-compatible uses, such as severed lots, away from livestock and poultry facilities, and similarly sited over 20,000 barns. However, they are under review because of the need to reflect the current and anticipated state of the livestock and poultry industry, the changing needs of the rural community, and to make it easier to apply for the growing number of municipal staff with little knowledge of the agricultural industry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207