Effects of Urban River Rehabilitation Structures on the Fish Community of the Ottawa River, Ohio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban rivers are often viewed as prime candidates for rehabilitation efforts.However, few analyses on the effects of rehabilitation structures on a resident fish community have been published.A 1,500m section of the Ottawa River located on the University of Toledo campus was the site of such urban river rehabilitation.A before/after -control/impact (BACI) study design was implemented to analyze the impact of the rehabilitation.I predicted that rehabilitation structures, while limited by the regional species pool, would positively impact the fish community abundance, richness, Shannon diversity (SDI), and index of biotic integrity (IBI).I also predicted that rehabilitation structures would positively affect site habitat quality in terms of surficial sediment heterogeneity, variability of water depth, and a quantitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI).Eight 20m sites were selected; four control sites and four impact sites, where structures were placed after 2013 sampling.Each of the eight sites was sampled twice during low water in the summers of 2013 and 2014.Fish community metrics, collected with seines and a backpack shocker, included species presence, diversity, richness, IBI and spawning condition.Habitat variables included Qualitative Habitat I would like to thank my advisor and friend, Dr. Johan Göttgens for all of the time and effort he has invested in my scientific development.I offer gratitude to my committee member Dr. Patrick Lawrence for his advising and important feedback.I also
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".