Measurement of Odour Concentration of Immissions using a New Field Olfactometer and Markers' Chemical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel field olfactometer, Scentroid SM110 (IDES Canada Inc., 2012), based on a new technology, has been tested in comparison with another portable olfactometer, Nasal Ranger (St. Croix Sensory Inc., 2003). Responses of both devices during a measurement campaign were compared with odour predicted values by a dispersion model and with chemical data of emission marker’s analysis. The measurement test was performed in an anaerobic digestion plant located near Vicenza (Italy) and one typical odour source was a biofilter with an emission of 350 ouE/m3. The objective of this study is to compare different techniques (field olfactometry, marker’s analysis, dispersion model) for assessing the concentration of odour in ambient air. The analysis of results shows a clear and measurable influence of background odour in ambient air, resulting in higher odour levels when measured using field olfactometry than is predicted using chemical analysis or dispersion modeling. Furthermore, a good agreement was found between chemical data and predicted values from CALPUFF dispersion model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".