MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129745733 · doi:10.4236/jwarp.2013.57073

Constructed Ponds and Small Stream Habitats: Hypothesized Interactions and Methods to Minimize Impacts

2013· article· en· W2129745733 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

VenueJournal of Water Resource and Protection · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHabitatWatershedEcosystemAquatic ecosystemSTREAMSRiver ecosystemSedimentEcologyFreshwater ecosystemHydrology (agriculture)GeologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive research has been conducted on how large impoundments and reservoirs affect hydrologic, geomorphologic and ecological processes in downstream ecosystems. Surprisingly, few studies have addressed the effects of smaller impoundments and constructed ponds. Pond construction has been considered an important tool for managers seeking to reduce sediment, nutrient and pollutant loads, and increase habitat heterogeneity in streams in an effort to conserve or enhance aquatic species diversity. However, we lack information on the interaction between ponds and stream habitats, which may compromise the efficacy of conservation efforts. The objective of this review is to outline possible physical and biological changes to stream ecosystems resulting from pond construction. Greater understanding of how ponds influence watershed processes at various spatial scales is crucial to evaluating the effects of constructed ponds on stream ecosystems.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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