Change in sediment features and the macroinvertebrate community within an estuarine ecosystem two years post‐restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our objective was to assess the response of an estuarine ecosystem to restoration efforts, two years post‐restoration. Sediment attributes of particle size distribution (PSD), %LOI, water content and amounts of fine wood debris (FWD), and the macroinvertebrate community were compared among three sites, two reference and the recently restored site. The restored region had been previously used as a log sorting facility. As indicated by PSD, the restored site showed signs of recovery. However, the macroinvertebrate community had still not responded to restoration efforts. Sediments of reference sites were comprised of fine sand, and the macroinvertebrate community was dominated by Macoma spp. By contrast, at the restored site, sediments were mainly comprised of silt followed by fine sand, Macoma spp. was absent, and the main macroinvertebrate was Glycera americana , a polychaeta characteristic of disturbed regions. The restored site still contained significance amounts of FWD as compared to the two reference sites attributed to its previous use. Although still early in its recovery stage, active restoration did have a positive effect and will have likely kick started the region toward recovery and further follow‐up in five years is 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".