MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6981554508

Emission and dispersion of odour from swine operations

2011· dissertation· en· W6981554508 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensity (physics)Dispersion (optics)ManureAtmospheric dispersion modelingAtmosphere (unit)Significant differenceHydrology (agriculture)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Odour emissions and instantaneous downwind odour plumes were measured on two 3000-sow swine farrowing farms located in a flat area of southern Manitoba, one farm (Farm A) with open earthen manure storage (EMS) and another (Farm B) with negative air pressure (NAP) covered EMS. Three commonly used dispersion models (ISCST3, AUSPLUME, and INPUFF-2) were used to predict downwind odour distributions on the two farms. Dispersion predictions were based on the measured odour emission data for each farm and on-site weather data recorded by a portable weather station. The peak-to-mean ratios of downwind odour intensity were computed from field odour intensity measurements and analysed against averaging time, downwind distance, and atmosphere stability class. It was found that the average odour emission rate from the negative pressure covered earthen manure storage (NAP EMS) was negligible in comparison with the open EMS (0.3 vs 20.3 OU/ s-m2). Downwind odour intensity measured by trained human sniffers on Farm A with covered manure storage was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that on Farm B with open manure storage at 100 and 500 m, but the difference in odour intensity at 1000 m was not significant (P>0.05) between the two farms. A 46% difference in odour emission rate between Farms A and B resulted in a 14% difference in the separation distance for odour annoyance-free between the two farms. When three commonly used dispersion models, namely AUSPLUME, ISCST3, and INPUFF-2, were used to predict downwind odour from the farms, the percentage of agreement between model predictions and field measurements was adequate for downwind distances of 500 and 1000 m, but relatively low for 100 m for all three models. Since the long-distance (>1000 m) predictions are of more practical value, all three models were considered to be adequate in predicting odour downwind from the swine operations. The peak-to-mean ratios of downwind odour intensity were computed from field odour intensity measurements and analysed against averaging time, downwind distance, and atmospheric stability class. The peak-to-mean ratio of field odour intensity increases with averaging time and downwind distance, and unstable atmospheric conditions.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.145 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→French-language works237,207→