Sources of large wood in the main stem of a fourth-order watershed in coastal Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the contribution of large wood from different sources and wood distributions among channel zones of influence in a relatively pristine fourth-order watershed in the central Coast Range of Oregon. Wood in the main stem of Cummins Creek was identified as coming from either (i) streamside sources immediately adjacent to the channel or (ii) upslope sources delivered by landslides or debris flows more than 90 m from the channel. About 65% of the number of pieces and 46% of the estimated volume of wood were from upslope sources. Streamside sources contributed about 35% of the number of pieces and 54% of the estimated volume of wood. The estimated mean volume of upslope-derived pieces was about one-third that of streamside-derived pieces. Upslope-derived pieces were located primarily in the middle stream reaches and in the zones of influence that had the most contact with the low-flow channel. Streamside-derived pieces were more evenly distributed among the examined reaches and were predominately in the influence zones that had the least contact with the low-flow channel. Our findings suggest that previous studies that examined only streamside sources of wood have limited applications when designing and evaluating riparian management approaches in landslide-prone areas. The failure to recognize the potential sources of wood from upslope areas is a possible reason for the decline of large wood in streams in the Pacific Northwest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".