Historical Flashiness Index Dynamics in Urbanizing Streams in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban-growth increases impervious-surface cover and ‘flashy’ streamflow responses. Research has suggested that flashy streamflow occurs when total impervious area (TIA) approaches and crosses 10% of a watershed. This study examines the spatiotemporal variability in river flashiness of rural/urbanizing watersheds in southwestern Ontario. This research addresses relationships between river flashiness and watershed TIA across 37 watersheds as they approach and/or cross 10% TIA between 1990 and 2017. The Richards-Baker Flashiness Index (RBFI) were calculated using hydrometric-data for each watershed. Watershed TIA was estimated for the years 1990/2000/2010/2017 using land-use-data. Strength and direction of the RBFI-TIA relationship is compared to other watershed characteristics (area, soil type). Results show that spatial variability in RBFI is best explained by soil type rather than TIA. Mann-Kendall trend-analysis revealed 10/37 watersheds exhibited significantly increasing RBFI trends. Watersheds with larger increases in RBFI over the study period had lower urban-growth suggesting factors beyond TIA influencing watershed flashiness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".