MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118860294 · doi:10.1139/f05-187

Influence of land use on fine sediment in salmonid spawning gravels within the Russian River Basin, California

2005· article· en· W2118860294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeff J. Opperman, Kathleen A. Lohse, Colin Brooks, Maggi Kelly, Adina M. Merenlender

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiparian zoneWatershedSTREAMSSedimentLand coverHydrology (agriculture)Structural basinLand useEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinEmbeddednessSiltationGeographyEcologyGeologyHabitatGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between land use or land cover and embeddedness, a measure of fine sediment in spawning gravels, were examined at multiple scales across 54 streams in the Russian River Basin, California. The results suggest that coarse-scale measures of watershed land use can explain a large proportion of the variability in embeddedness and that the explanatory power of this relationship increases with watershed size. Agricultural and urban land uses and road density were positively associated with embeddedness, while the opposite was true for forest cover. The ability of land use and land cover to predict embeddedness varied among five zones of influence, with the greatest explanatory power occurring at the entire-watershed scale. Land use within a more restricted riparian corridor generally did not relate to embeddedness, suggesting that reach-scale riparian protection or restoration will have little influence on levels of fine sediment. The explanatory power of these models was greater when conducted among a subset of the largest watersheds (maximum r 2 = 0.73) than among the smallest watersheds (maximum r 2 = 0.46).

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207