Setting Acceptable Odor Criteria Using Steady-state and Variable Weather Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Odor travel distances predicted by air dispersion models, at which odor dilutes to a certain odor concentration, e.g. the chosen acceptable odor concentration, are different using steadystate and variable weather conditions, therefore, the acceptable odor concentration criteria should be different using these two types of weather data. The objective of this study was to determine the odor criteria that result in the same setback distance under these two types of weather conditions. Using CALPUFF model, the odor dispersion from a typical swine farm in Saskatchewan, Canada was modeled using both steady-state and annual hourly variable weather conditions. The model predicted concentrations under steady-state conditions and the annual occurrence frequencies of these weather conditions, and the model predicted concentrations and the exceeding frequencies under variable (hourly) weather conditions are compared and the equivalent combination of odor concentrations and frequencies under these two types of weather conditions are identified in order to achieve the same odor travel distances. These equivalent odor concentrations and frequencies under these two types of weather conditions may be used as acceptable odor criteria to determine setback distances from livestock farms.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".