Does restoration work? It depends on how we measure success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The restoration of 4 partial stream barriers was evaluated in watersheds of Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland, Canada from 2009 to 2011. Brook trout ( n = 462) were tagged and tracked moving through our study sites using passive‐integrated transponder telemetry and the restoration actions were assessed using 3 different measures: passage success rates; the range of passable flows; and the availability of passable flows. We considered the observed results within a before‐after‐control‐impact (BACI) design that included reference reaches and pre‐restoration observations. The conclusions of BACI analyses were also contrasted with those that would have been obtained from commonly used before‐after (B‐A) or control‐impact (C‐I) study designs. While the restoration actions changed hydrological conditions in a way that should facilitate fish passage, our biological measures indicated that success was variable across culverts and within culverts depending on the measure evaluated. Furthermore, the natural temporal and spatial variability of fish movements often resulted in different conclusions between the more robust BACI design and the more commonly used B‐A and C‐I designs. Our results demonstrate that restoration of partial barriers may not always yield dramatic improvements. Furthermore, without suitable controls, the chances of drawing false conclusions regarding restorations in temporally and spatially dynamic systems are substantial.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".