Energy consumption of heat pads and heat lamps and aerial environment in a commercial swine farrowing facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was conducted to compare two localized heating methods, namely heat pads and heat lamps, in a commercial swine farrowing facility. Two farrowing rooms each with 44 crates were instrumented for monitoring room environmental conditions (temperature and relative humidity) and energy consumption. One room was equipped with 175W (per crate) heat lamps and the other room with 65W (per crate) heat pads. The piglet mortality and weight gain were recorded. The air temperature in the two rooms was maintained at the same level using environmental controllers (set at the same setpoint). However, the relative humidity in the lamp room was found to be lower than that in the heat pad room probably due to more ventilation required to remove more sensible heat produced by the lamps. There were no significant differences in the mortality rate and weight gain between heat pads and heat lamps. The daily energy consumption by heat pads was 2.9 kWh less than that by heat lamps per crate. This represents a 73% saving of energy required for localized heating.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".