Large woody debris characteristics and contributions to pool formation in forest streams of the Boreal Shield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inputs, characteristics, and function of large woody debris (LWD) were assessed in 16 mid-order (average channel widths of 37 m), moderate-gradient (approx. 1%5% channel slopes) streams in mixedwood forests of the Boreal Shield in Ontario. Three of the streams were adjacent to clearcuts, with the remainder in areas that have not been logged or recently (>70 years) burned. The average frequency (19.9 pieces·100 m1) and size (mean diameter 16.7 cm) of LWD in these streams were less than reported in most other regions and forest types. Averaged across sites, input sources were undetermined for about 50% of the LWD owing to fluvial displacement from the points of origin. Natural mortality (24%) and windthrow (15%) were primary input sources of the remaining LWD. Windthrow was highly variable and mostly associated with nearby clear-cut logging. At the three sites near clearcuts, windthrow contributed 34%62% of LWD in streams. In study reaches where active beaver colonies were observed, beaver-felled trees accounted for up to 47% of LWD inputs. The average frequency of debris dams (2.4 dams·100 m1) was less than those reported from studies in other areas and was positively correlated with an index of bottom substrate size (r = 0.72). Less than 15% of the pools in these streams were formed or influenced by LWD. Most wood pieces appeared to be ineffective as pool-forming agents because of their relatively small size and instability. In these Boreal Shield forests, it appears that most riparian trees do not live long enough or grow to sufficient size to contribute functional LWD and influence stream morphology or pool formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".