Dynamics of wood in stream networks of the western Cascades Range, Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop and test a conceptual model of wood dynamics in stream networks that considers legacies of forest management practices, floods, and debris flows. We combine an observational study of wood in 25 km of 2nd- through 5th-order streams in a steep, forested watershed of the western Cascade Range of Oregon with whole-network studies of forest cutting, roads, and geomorphic processes over the preceding 50 years. Statistical and simple mass balance analyses show that natural process and forest management effects on wood input, transport processes, and decomposition account for observed patterns of wood in the stream network. Forest practices reduced wood amounts throughout the network; in headwater streams these effects are fixed in stream segments bordered by cuts and roads, but in larger channels they are diffused along the channel by fluvial transport of wood. Landforms and roads limited delivery of wood by debris flows to mainstem channels. Network dynamics studies and watershed management plans should include spatial patterns of debris flow initiation and runout, flood redistribution, and reduction of wood in the network by forest cutting and intentional wood removal from channels on time scales of forest succession and recurrence of major floods.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".