Considering temporal flow variability of non-perennial rivers in assessing ecosystem service provision
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basis for the assessment of ecosystem services (ES) of non-perennial rivers to date has been a comparison of the ES provision among three different hydrological phases: flowing conditions, isolated pools, and dry streambeds. Being of an opinion that this practice might promote an incomplete and hence biased ES assessment, we propose two considerations for the ES assessment of non-perennial rivers. First, the conditions of each hydrological phase can vary based on the nature of multiple aquatic states. Second, the duration, frequency, timing, and magnitude of the aquatic states matter in the ES provision. Different scenarios of flow regime should be compared instead of hydrological phases in ES assessments. Our proposal sheds some light on the complexity of non-perennial rivers and allows for a better understanding of relationships between non-perennial rivers and society. Therefore, it can serve as the basis for the proper and participatory ES assessment, face for trade-offs between ecosystem conservation and resource use and reduce conflicts among stakeholders within river and water management.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it