The characteristics of woody debris and sediment distribution in headwater streams, southeastern Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large woody debris (LWD), fine woody debris (FWD), fine organic debris (FOD), and sediment deposition were measured in 15 steep headwater streams with five management and disturbance regimes. Clear-cut channels logged in 1995 contained large accumulations of logging residue that initially provided sites for sediment storage. Half of the LWD in clear-cut channels was recruited during and immediately after logging. Woody debris from logging activities remains in young growth conifer channels 37 years after logging. Numbers of LWD in clear-cut and young conifer channels were significantly higher than in old-growth channels, although numbers of FWD pieces were not significantly different because of higher recruitment from old-growth stands. Channels that experienced recent (1979 and (or) 1993) and earlier (1961 and (or) 1979) scour and runout of landslides and debris flows contained less LWD and FWD, although large volumes of LWD and FWD were found in deposition zones. The volumes of sediment stored in young alder and recent landslide channels were higher than in the other channels. Because of the recruitment of LWD and FWD from young alder stands, the ratio of sediment stored behind woody debris to total sediment volume was higher in young alder channels compared with recent landslide channels. Numbers of LWD and FWD pieces in all streams were significantly correlated with the volumes of sediment stored behind woody debris. Timber harvesting and soil mass movement influence the recruitment, distribution, and accumulation of woody debris in headwater streams; this modifies sediment storage and transport in headwater channels.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".