MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2437376490

Ambient Air Quality Measurement Around Confined Feeding Operations in Alberta

2015· article· en· W2437376490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. Edeogu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessGovernment (linguistics)SustainabilityAuditEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns associated with growth, economic and environmental risks and sustainability, social license to operate, market access, climate change, among several others, including food safety, are increasingly faced by the agricultural crop and livestock sectors in Alberta today. In 2005, the confined feeding operation (CFO) industry - beef cattle (feedlot), dairy cattle, poultry, swine and sheep - in the province embarked on a project to develop a strategic plan that would assist the industry with managing air emissions from CFOs in the province. The strategic plan was completed in 2008 and one of its many recommendations was to monitor ambient concentrations of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide particulate matter and volatile organic compounds around CFOs. The study was embarked upon in 2008. A multi-stakeholder advisory group comprised on industry, non-government and government organizations completed an air quality measurement plan with implementation commencing in 2009. The plan outlined established or proposed provincial ambient air quality limits (objectives) for the four emissions of interest, CFO livestock categories of interest, site selection criteria and eligibility, spatial allocation of monitoring sites, temporal criteria, schedule of activity, monitoring methodologies and equipment, QA/QC, data quality objectives, data acquisition and transfer, data analysis and archiving, data reporting, resource requirements, and risk management. This paper outlines the results of the measurement study, including its scope, study description and methodologies employed not only in collecting the data, but also in analyzing the data. The implications associated with the study results are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207