MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975869967 · doi:10.1002/rra.1105

Effects of large woody debris on surface structure and aquatic habitat in forested streams, southern interior British Columbia, Canada

2008· article· en· W1975869967 on OpenAlex
Xiaoyong Chen, Xiaohua Wei, R. Scherer, Dan Hogan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSLarge woody debrisChannel (broadcasting)Hydrology (agriculture)HabitatDebrisSedimentStream restorationEnvironmental scienceWatershedStream bedAquatic ecosystemEcologyGeologyGeomorphologyBiologyOceanographyRiparian zone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well known that large woody debris (LWD) plays an important functional role in aquatic organisms' life. However, the influence of LWD on channel morphology and aquatic environments at watershed levels is still unclear. The relationships between wood and surface structure and aquatic habitat in 35 first through fifth order streams of southern interior British Columbia were investigated. Study streams in the channel networks of the study watersheds were classified into four size categories based on stream order and bankfull width: Stream size I: bankfull width was less than 3 m, Stream size II: 3–5 m, Stream size III: 5–7 m, Stream size IV: larger than 7 m. We found the number of functional pieces increased with stream size and wood surface area in stream sizes I, II and III (24, 28 and 25 m 2 /100 m 2 , respectively) was significantly higher than that in stream size IV (12 m 2 /100 m 2 ). The contribution of wood pieces to pool formation was 75% and 85% in stream sizes II and III, respectively, which was significantly higher than those in stream size I (50%) and size IV (25%). Between 21% and 25% of wood pieces were associated with storing sediment, and between 20% and 29% of pieces were involved in channel bank stability in all study streams. Due to long‐term interactions, LWD in the intermediate sized streams (Size II and III) exhibited much effect on channel surface structure and aquatic habitats in the studied watersheds. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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