MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035538270 · doi:10.13031/2013.32059

A Two-Airspace Building Design to Reduce Odor and Ammonia Emissions

2010· article· en· W2035538270 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Engineering in Agriculture · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarnManureOdorEnvironmental scienceWaste managementVentilation (architecture)Environmental engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringChemistryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emissions from the barn ventilation system and manure storage facilities constitute two continuous sources of gas and odor emissions from pig facilities. In Canada, swine manure is generally stored outside the barn to minimize the risk of worker and animal exposure to hydrogen sulfide during manure agitation and to reduce construction costs. However, storing swine manure in the barn would decrease the number of continuous emission sources from two to one. By having two separate airspaces in the building consisting of a main airspace and an enclosed dunging area (EDA), swine manure can be stored within the barn with reduced risk. Gas transfer from the manure storage to the EDA and the building emissions would be reduced if the EDA exhaust air is treated. Preliminary experiments were conducted to determine a basic design for a functioning EDA: type and width of doorway and equipment necessary to minimize the time spent by the pigs in the EDA. The EDA design was incorporated into existing grower-finisher rooms and tested over three trials. Problems with dunging patterns necessitated the modification of the EDA as the study progressed. A 0.4-m rubber strip curtain doorway evolved into a full pen width curtain doorway. During the last trial, when the pigs properly used the EDA as a dunging location, the experimental room equipped with a full width curtain drawing across the EDA tended to reduce odor emissions and provided a 43% reduction in NH3 emissions. Considering the EDA concept and the modifications incorporated to address the experimental challenges over the trials, a full width curtain EDA is the most promising option for separating the main airspace of a barn from the dunging area. More research is required to further develop this concept.

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.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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