Development of a Livestock Odor Dispersion Model: Part II. Evaluation and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A livestock odor dispersion model (LODM) was developed to predict odor concentration and odor frequency using routine hourly meteorological data input. The odor concentrations predicted by the LODM were compared with the results obtained from other commercial models (Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model, version 3, CALPUFF) to evaluate its appropriateness. Two sets of field odor plume measurement data were used to validate the model. The model-predicted mean odor concentrations and odor frequencies were compared with those measured. Results show that this model has good performance for predicting odor concentrations and odor frequencies. IMPLICATIONS This study provides an evaluation and validation for a newly developed LODM. Two sets of field odor plume measurement data were used. Agreement fractional bias values were applied to compare modeled predicted odor intensities and measured intensities. Fac2 (the percentage of the predictions within a factor of 2 of the observed values) and defined Ran0.1 and Ran0.2 values (the percentage of the predictions within a range of ±0.2 and ±0.1, respectively, of the observed values) were used to validate the model performance of predicting odor frequency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".