Aquatic health effects of biotechnical streambank restoration of the Elbow River in an urban environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Streambank stabilization that uses non-living and living design elements, called biotechnical restoration, is an increasingly common approach to stream restoration design. With this increase in use, it is important to ask if biotechnical restoration practices have an effect on the aquatic ecosystem health of a water body. This study collected aquatic macroinvertebrates, basic water chemistry and physical habitat quality data at three sites, evaluating habitat using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rapid habitat assessment protocol for biotechnical restored sites. Data was collected and analyzed at three separate sites located within the Elbow River, in the City of Calgary, Alberta. The study sites consisted of timber crib wall and willow plantings with riprap toe treatments and were compared to non-restored reference sites. Overall, changes in macroinvertebrate assemblage response were observed at the timber crib wall restoration site, highlighted by a significant increase of percent Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) taxa. Water temperatures and EPA habitat assessment scores also showed a significant response to biotechnical treatments (decrease in mean water temperatures, increase mean habitat scores), demonstrating that biotechnical stream bank restoration treatment can result in a detectable aquatic health change. Improvements to these treatments in future restoration design are recommended
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".