Video monitoring of in‐channel wood: From flux characterization and prediction to recommendations to equip stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wood flux (piece number per time interval) is a key parameter for understanding wood budgeting, determining the controlling factors, and managing flood risk in a river basin. Quantitative wood flux data is critically needed to improve the understanding of wood dynamics and estimate wood discharge in rivers. In this study, the streamside videography technique was applied to detect wood passage and measure instantaneous rates of wood transport. The goal was to better understand how wood flux responds to flood and wind events and then predict wood flux. In total, one exceptional wind and seven flood events were monitored on the Ain River, France, and around 24,000 wood pieces were detected visually. It is confirmed that, in general, there is a threshold of wood motion in the river equal to 60% of bankfull discharge. However, in a flood following a windy day, no obvious threshold for wood motion was observed, which confirms that wind is important for the preparation of wood for transport between floods. In two multi‐peak floods, around two‐thirds of the total amount of wood was delivered on the first peak, which confirms the importance of the time between floods for predicting wood fluxes. Moreover, we found an empirical relation between wood frequency and wood discharge, which is used to estimate the total wood amount produced by each of the floods. The data set is then used to develop a random forest regression model to predict wood frequency as a function of three input variables that are derived from the flow hydrograph. The model calculates the total wood volume either during day or night based on the video monitoring technique for the first time, which expands its utility for wood budgeting in a watershed. A one‐to‐one link is then established between the fraction of detected pieces of wood and the dimensionless parameter “ passing time × frame rate ”, which provides a general guideline for the design of monitoring stations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".