Development of a mapping approach encompassing most fluvial processes: Lessons learned from the freedom space for rivers concept in Quebec (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The consensus around the need for a shift in river management approaches to include more natural processes is steadily growing amongst scientists, practitioners, and governmental agencies. The freedom space for rivers concept promotes the delineation of a single space that integrates multiple fluvial dynamics such as floods, lateral migration, channel avulsions, and riparian wetlands connectivity. The objective of this research is to assess the validity of the hydrogeomorphological approach to delineate the freedom space for an extensive sampling of river reaches, covering 167 km, in contrasting watersheds in Quebec (Canada). Comparative analysis was conducted on the relative importance of erosion and flood processes on the freedom space delineation for various fluvial types. Semiautomated tools based on light detection and ranging (LiDAR) digital elevation models were also tested on an additional 274 km of watercourses to facilitate freedom space mapping over extensive zones and for highly dynamics environments such as alluvial fans. In the studied reaches, flood and erosion processes occur respectively, on average, in a space equivalent to 2.6 and 20.6 channel widths. In unconfined landscapes, flood processes represent an area up to almost four times the area of erosion processes expected in a 50‐year period. In partly confined and confined environments, erosion processes are more likely to exceed flooding zone, and therefore need to be integrated in the mapping. This study helps better determine the conditions for which the full methodology of freedom space mapping is required or where semiautomated methods can be used. It provides useful guidelines for the implementation of the freedom space approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".