MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062905698 · doi:10.1002/rra.1120

Macroinvertebrate community response to inter‐annual and regional river flow regime dynamics

2008· article· en· W2062905698 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Temporal scalesEnvironmental scienceEcosystemEcologyHabitatRiver ecosystemStreamflowSpatial ecologyBiodiversityGeographyDrainage basinBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spatio‐temporal variability in river flow is a fundamental control on instream habitat structure and riverine ecosystem biodiversity and integrity. However, long‐term riverine ecological time‐series to test hypotheses about hydrology–ecology interactions in a broader temporal context are rare, and studies spanning multiple rivers are often limited in their temporal coverage to less than five years. To address this research gap, a unique spatio‐temporal hydroecological analysis was conducted of long‐term instream ecological responses (1990–2000) to river flow regime variability at 83 sites across England and Wales. The results demonstrate clear hydroecological associations at the national scale (all data). In addition, significant differences in ecological response are recorded between three ‘regions’ identified (RM1–3*) associated with characteristics of the flow regime. The effect of two major supra‐seasonal droughts (1990–1992 and 1996–1997) on inter‐annual (IA) variability of the LIFE scores is evident with both events showing a gradual decline before and recovery of LIFE scores after the low flow period. The instream community response to high magnitude flow regimes (1994 and 1995) is also apparent, although these associations are less striking. The results demonstrate classification of rivers into flow regime regions offers a way to help unravel complex hydroecological associations. The approach adopted herein could easily be adapted for other geographical locations, where datasets are available. Such work is imperative to understand flow regime–ecology interactions in a longer term, wider spatial context and so assess future hydroecological responses to climate change and anthropogenic modification of riverine ecosystems. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.264 · 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