The Ecology and Management of Wood in World Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<em>Abstract.</em>—The use of large wood in stream restoration projects has become increasingly popular in the last 20 years. We reviewed more than 30 case studies from different ecoregions and countries (Canada, Germany, Japan, United States) to evaluate the variety of approaches used and assessed their reported success. Wood inputs generally fell into two categories: fixed structural designs or placements where wood was not fixed to one location. Large wood was used in fixed designs in most studies from North America and usually built in or anchored by cables. Few projects attempted to simulate the dynamic processes of wood inputs to the floodplain. Mobile wood placements were mostly used in projects after 1990. They represented 6% of the projects in North America and 55% in Germany, where restoration projects designed with mobile wood can be found even in densely populated (200 people/km<sup>²</sup>) rural areas, but only along second- and third-order streams. Few studies attempted to simulate historical amounts and distribution of wood in forested catchments. In most of the studies from rural areas, practical aspects like stream access or the availability of logs dominated the experimental design and placements.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".