MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165260385 · doi:10.82308/23117

Economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion of swine manure for a grower-to-finisher hog operation in Quebec

2004· article· en· W3165260385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nurlan Apushev

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManureAnaerobic digestionAnimal wasteEconomic analysisAgricultural scienceWaste managementBusinessBiotechnologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyAgronomyEngineeringAgricultural economicsEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swine manure creates much public resentment in Quebec due to nutrient overloading, potential water pollution and odour. Anaerobic digestion is one of the solutions that allows to lessen the odour problem. Anaerobic bacteria in manure produce methane. The latter can be burnt to produce heat and electricity on farms. Moreover, there is a potential for receiving carbon emission reduction credits for the capturing of methane. Investment analysis was performed to assess the economic feasibility of a potential anaerobic digestion system on a grower-to-finisher hog operation. The study was conducted for a case farm, which had plans to expand from 2000 to 4800 pigs. Greenhouse gas emission reduction credits were incorporated into one of the scenarios. A sensitivity analysis revealed the most important variables which affect the economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207