MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400695268 · doi:10.1002/hyp.15223

JAMES BUTTLE REVIEW: Quantifying the influence of forestry and forest disturbance on stream temperature: Methodologies and challenges

2024· article· en· W4400695268 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. D. Moore, Ryan J. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceForestryHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stream temperature governs many aquatic ecosystem processes and plays a key role in determining the distribution of cold‐water amphibians and cool‐ and cold‐water fish, including salmonids. Decades of research have focused on the effects of forestry and forest disturbance on stream temperature, and new projects are underway or being planned in jurisdictions including the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, and Washington State, USA. The objective of this paper is to provide a critical review of methodologies employed in previous studies. The review initially focuses on the range of metrics used to quantify stream thermal regimes and the factors that control stream temperature variability in time and space, then focuses on sampling and analytical methodologies used to quantify stream temperature response to forestry activity and forest disturbance. Empirical methods include sampling in time, space, or both, and may or may not include pre‐ and post‐harvest data. Process‐based mechanistic and hybrid empirical‐mechanistic models have also been applied. The advantages and disadvantages of these approaches are discussed, and recommendations provided to support the design and execution of future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207