Quantifying effective restoration: reassessing the productive capacity of a constructed stream 14 years after construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using natural streams as references against which ecosystem structure and function could be compared, we examined the short-term (1–3 years) and long-term (14 years) effectiveness of a 3.4 km constructed stream in the Northwest Territories, Canada. The constructed stream variously showed little to marked improvements 14 years after construction (2011), relative to 1998–2000 and to reference streams, depending on the stream attribute. Many attributes related to stocks of organic matter remained well below reference levels in the constructed stream after 14 years. Leaf matter processing rates increased in the constructed stream to the point of convergence with reference streams in 2011, but the latter still had superior leaf retention abilities. By Year 14, benthic invertebrate composition in the constructed stream showed some convergence with reference streams, although densities generally lagged, especially in riffles. In 2011, growth of young-of-the-year Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) from the constructed stream was substantially greater relative to 1998–2001, but remained well below contemporary reference levels. Our mixed results raise questions about the definition and time scale of successful restoration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".