Woody debris in fjord sediments influenced by localized logging in Barkley Sound, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logging activity on Vancouver Island has many potential impacts on proximal rivers and streams, including the destabilization of stream banks, increased erosion, and rafting of sediment downstream that is eventually deposited at the river mouth.However, the effects of logging on transport of woody debris (such as twigs, wood chips, and pieces) have not been well documented.The focus of this study is to examine the impacts of logging activity on the concentration of particulate woody debris deposited in three rivers (Sarita, Franklin, and Effingham) that feed into Barkley Sound.Woody debris was measured as a percent by weight in sample marine sediments, typically located at the mouth of the drainage river.Particulate woody material was separated manually and fine material by density fractionation methods with 1.2 g/ml sodium polytungstate as a medium.The focus areas include a 500-meter buffer bounding the rivers, and the entire span of their drainage basins.Logging activity was calculated by classifying satellite images in ArcGIS into three land cover classes: freshly logged forest/bare soil, recovering logged areas, and fully-grown forest (either previously logged or undisturbed).Drainage basins were determined by creating triangulated irregular networks (TIN) in ArcGIS and tracing along topographical high points.Results of this analysis show that older logging plots (previously logged and now in the process of recovering) within a 500-meter buffer of these rivers are significantly more influential in wood transport than recently logged patches within that same buffer.Analyses of all three river basins show that there is no correlation between logging activity and woody debris deposition at the mouth of the drainage basin.Additionally, there is a positive correlation between the amount of fully grown forest (within both the 500-meter buffer and over the entire basin) and the amount of woody debris deposited at the mouths of each river.The Sarita, Franklin, and Effingham basins all have very similar amounts of logging activity (both current and recovering plots), yet do not exhibit similar amounts of woody debris deposited at the river mouth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".