Selection of river flow indices for the assessment of hydroecological change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A wide range of ‘ecologically relevant’ hydrological indices (variables) have been identified as potential drivers of riverine communities. Recently, concerns have been expressed regarding index redundancy (i.e. similar patterns of variance) across the host of hydrological descriptors on offer to researchers and water resource managers. Some guiding principles are required to aid selection of the most statistically defensible and meaningful river flow indices for hydroecological analysis. In this short communication, we investigate the utility of a principal components analysis (PCA)‐based method that identifies 25 hydrological variables to characterize the major modes of statistical variation in 201 hydrological indices for 83 rivers across England and Wales. The emergent variables, and all 201 hydrological variables, are used to develop regression models [for the whole data set and three river flow regime shape (i.e. annual hydrograph form) classes] for an 11‐year macroinvertebrate community dataset (i.e. LIFE scores). The same ‘best’ models are produced using the PCA‐based method and all 201 hydrological variables for two of the three river flow regime groups. However, weaker models are yielded by the PCA‐based method for the remaining (flashy) river flow regime class and the whole data set (all 83 rivers). Thus, it is important to exercise caution when employing data reduction/index redundancy approaches, as they may reject variables of ecological significance due to the assumption that the statistically dominant sources of hydrological variability are the principal drivers of, perhaps more subtle (sensitive), hydroecological associations. © Crown copyright 2006. Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Published by 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".