MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7038209759

Greenhouse gas emissions from stored liquid swine manure

2003· dissertation· en· W7038209759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2003
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasManureMethaneMethane emissionsFlux (metallurgy)Climate changeGlobal warming
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current global warming has been linked to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration increases. Environmental and animal factors affect and lend uncertainties to GHG emissions from swine manure. A micrometeorological four-tower mass balance method was used to quantify CH4 and N 2O emissions from stored liquid swine manure in a quasi-continuous year-round study at two commercial swine farms (Jarvis and Guelph) in a cold climate region. Data filtering criteria were developed to minimize errors in flux calculation, and were efficient to improve accuracy of GHG flux estimates. In the Jarvis experiment, CH4 and N2O emissions were significantly higher than zero, with emissions during summer higher than during fall (CH4: 583.8 vs. 174.1 [mu]g/m2/s; N 2O: 337.6 vs. 101.8 ng/m2/s). In the Guelph experiment, only CH4 emissions were significantly larger than zero (1054.8 in fall vs. 22.7 [mu]g/m2/s in winter). Significant differences in daytime and nighttime CH4 fluxes were observed during summer and winter. Each manure storage tank was very heterogeneous, showing 'hot spots' emitting higher CH4. Methane fluxes calculated through IPCC default methods were 1.6 to 6.7 times higher than measured via four-tower mass balance method.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→