The need for river management and stream restoration practices to integrate hydrogeomorphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing support amongst scientists worldwide about the need for a shift in river management approaches to include hydrogeomorphic processes. However, the degree to which these concepts are transferred to governmental agencies and practitioners varies widely. In Quebec, for example, many stream restoration projects are based on the (incorrect) assumption that river mobility and its inevitable consequences (bank erosion of meanders, presence of woody debris in the channel) are problematic for salmonids. This paper presents examples drawn from current guidelines on stream restoration for fish habitat in Quebec to demonstrate the need to improve the knowledge exchange among scientists and decision makers about the positive impact of river mobility and large wood dynamics on biodiversity. Our observations reveal that existing guidelines for stream restoration in Quebec need to be revised to better integrate hydrogeomorphic concepts and to no longer assume that maintaining rivers in a static state is beneficial for fish. Adopting the “freedom space for rivers” approach would likely result in improved habitat as it combines natural processes related to mobility, flooding, and riparian wetland connectivity to determine the minimal space around rivers where development should not be allowed, thus allowing river processes to be restored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".