Performance Evaluation of a Commercial Greenhouse in Canada Using Dehumidification Technologies and LED Lighting: A Modeling Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a lumped parameter model, developed and extensively validated by the authors, is used to simulate the impact of three different dehumidification technologies (mechanical refrigeration dehumidifier, liquid desiccant dehumidifier, and a heat recovery ventilation unit), at a commercial greenhouse growing potted roses in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Typical meteorological year (TMY) data from nearby Vineland, Ontario was used to provide the external weather data used in the model. Each greenhouse bay containing a dehumidification unit was simulated for spring, fall, and winter conditions. The potential reductions in energy use (kWh), greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2e), and operating cost were estimated for each test case. The potential energy savings from switching from high-pressure sodium (HPS) to light-emitting diode (LED) lights were also examined. The simulation results showed that switching to LED lamps could reduce the electrical energy usage by up to 60% but would increase the space heating requirements. The expected energy-savings from using dehumidification equipment and switching from HPS to LED lighting in Canadian greenhouses is underrepresented in the literature. With the industry growing in the region, this study provides insight into the expected impact that these systems will have on the energy use in commercial greenhouses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".