STREAM HEALTH AFTER URBANIZATION<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Urban development has compromised the quality of physical elements offish habitat in low‐order spawning and rearing streams. In order to identify where priorities should lie in stream rehabilitation, field surveys of a number of streams were conducted near Vancouver, British Columbia. All of the streams were located in watersheds which were urbanized approximately 20 years earlier. The study watersheds ranged from 5 to 77 percent total impervious area (percent TIA). The urban streambeds were found to have less fine material and slightly higher values of intragravel dissolved oxygen than in rural streams. This improved gravel quality is attributed to the higher peak flows generated by impervious areas, and the reduced recruitment of fine material in the urban watersheds. Summer base flow was uniformly low when imperviousness was above 40 percent, evidenced by a decrease in velocity rather than water depth. Large woody debris (LWD) was scarce in all streams with > 20 percent TIA. A healthy buffer zone and abundant LWD were found to stabilize stream banks. The introduction of LWD is considered the most important strategy for stream rehabilitation. Stormwater detention ponds, in contrast, are concluded to have few hydrological benefits if constructed after a stream has reached its urban equilibrium.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".