MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522657851

Impacts of wildfire on effective sediment particle size : implications for post-fire sediment budgets

2005· article· en· W2522657851 on OpenAlexaff
William Blake, Ian G. Droppo, Peter Wallbrink, Stefan H. Doerr, Richard A. Shakesby, G. S. Humphreys

Bibliographic record

VenueIAHS-AISH publication · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentSettlingEnvironmental scienceTopsoilHydrology (agriculture)ErosionFluvialGeologyParticle-size distributionSediment transportSoil scienceParticle sizeGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterEnvironmental engineeringStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work in an Australian catchment has shown that severe wildfires followed by rainstorm events lead to redistribution of topsoil and export of sediment to the local river network. Considering the affinity of nutrients and other contaminants for fine sediment, and the potential for considerable downstream impacts, a sound understanding of the fine-sediment delivery from burnt systems is required. However, past work has shown that fire can modify the particle size distribution of the soil through formation of robust sand-sized aggregates comprising fine clays and silts. Image analysis confirmed the presence of fire-modified soil aggregates in our study area. Analysis of aggregate form and fluvial behaviour showed that fire-modified aggregates are fused, dense and inorganic in nature with settling velocities of an order of magnitude faster than unburnt soil aggregates or classic riverine flocs. This implies an increased potential for storage of nutrient-rich fine sediment within slope units, flood plains and river channels. The unusual behaviour of these composite particles should be considered in the construction of post-fire fine-sediment budgets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIAHS-AISH publicationSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207