MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019961628 · doi:10.2495/rm110201

Stream barb performance in a semi-alluvial meandering channel

2011· article· en· W2019961628 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E. C. Jamieson, Colin D. Rennie, R. D. Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on ecology and the environment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlluviumChannel (broadcasting)GeologyHydrology (agriculture)Alluvial fanGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of seven stream barbs were installed at two consecutive channel bends in Sawmill Creek, a semi-alluvial stream located in Ottawa, Canada.Stream barbs (also known as submerged groynes) are low-profile linear rock structures that extend from the outside bank regions of channel bends in an upstream direction, to redirect the attacking currents and prevent erosion of the bank.As well as providing bank protection, these structures promote vegetated stream banks, create resting pools and scour holes for fish habitat, and increase biodiversity for aquatic species.Despite these benefits, because of their relative novelty as river training structures, stream barbs are not a common means of stream bank protection in Canada and are possibly non-existent for semi-alluvial or clay channels.Three years of monitoring and measurement of flow conditions (discharge, water velocity and depth) and bathymetry, before (2 years) and after (1 year) the construction of the barbs, have been collected at the Sawmill Creek study site, providing valuable data for understanding their performance in a semi-alluvial channel.Sawmill Creek has a predominately clay bed and banks, presenting a rare opportunity to study the unique dynamics between flow and sediment transport within a clay channel.This paper reports on (i) the unique site conditions and monitoring methodology; (ii) preliminary results of the 3 year monitoring program; and (iii) recommendations for future design and implementation of these structures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.168
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on ecology and the environmentSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207