Redefining the Dam Removal Paradigm in Formerly Glaciated Forested Headwater Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional paradigm of dam removal includes an expectation of substantial sediment releases from impoundment storage accompanied by problematic downstream flushing transport and deposition. This expectation is largely based on the River Continuum Concept (RCC) model of streams. However, the pre-dam longitudinal profile of many headwater streams is not that of the stereotypical RCC continuously steep gradient, but rather a more stepped profile including high gradient transport-regime reaches interrupted by lower gradient depositional reaches. In fact, headwater stream systems are frequently punctuated by low gradient, wetland or wet meadow reaches produced by a variety of geologic controls. Modern impoundments now are emplaced within this discontinuous, stepped, longitudinal gradient of erosion-resistant transport reaches and low gradient depositional reaches, and the risks associated with sediment releases from dam removals are minimized by the downstream presence of depositional reaches capable of receiving and storing sediment released from upstream. Furthermore, it is quite likely that many headwater dams were constructed at pre-existing depositional reaches, creating the likely scenario that the impoundment sediments would be largely stable upon dam removal. In regions where these conditions are present, significant costs and delays associated with unnecessary sediment stabilization and or sediment removal are preventing the timely restoration of our headwater systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".