Comparison of the odour levels of biofiltered air and ambient farmyard air
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DeBruyn, J.C., Mann, D.D. and Zhang, Q. 2001. Comparison of the odour levels of biofiltered air and ambient farmyard air. Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le genie des biosystemes au Canada 43: 6.76.11. Two experimental biofilters were used to determine whether an airstream treated by a biofilter could be distinguished from ambient farmyard air. Odourous air (mean of 958 OU measured using olfactometry) from a nearby hog barn passed through the first biofilter, but “clean farmyard” air (mean of 34 OU) passed through the second biofilter. Six different biofilter media mixtures were formulated using three types of compost (yard-waste compost, grocery-waste compost, and poultry-manure compost) and three bulking agents (woodchips, hemp hurds, and unchopped wheat straw) blended in a 50%/50% mixture (by mass). Complete treatment of the airstream was achieved, based on outlet H2S levels < 11 ppb, for mixtures containing yardwaste or grocery-waste compost combined with either woodchips or hemp hurds. Outlet odour concentrations ranged from 22 to 51 OU for the odourous-air biofilter and from 26 to 51 OU for the clean-air biofilter. Thus, the residual odour of an airstream following passage through a biofilter bed consisting of compost and a bulking agent cannot be distinguished from ambient farmyard odour using olfactometry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".