River confinement and braiding loss in Canterbury region, Aotearoa New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In relation to the wider concern that rivers in Aotearoa New Zealand have been narrowed by river control and land‐use encroachment, and that iconic braided patterns are being lost, nine braided rivers from the Canterbury region were studied to compare river width, pattern type and braiding intensity between the mid‐1900s and the present based on mapping from aerial images. Channel narrowing occurred along >90% (~490 km) of the length of the rivers studied, 375 km of which were historically braided. In total, the rivers narrowed by an average of 43% (48% for braided reaches). Coinciding with narrowing, braided reaches lost 1.3 channels, on average. Overall, 20% (over 100 km) length of the rivers recorded a change from braided to more simple pattern types including wandering (~18%) and single channel (~1%). The relationship of channel width and pattern change demonstrates the predictability of braiding change based on channel narrowing. As channels narrow, the likelihood of pattern simplification and change increases, although the amount of narrowing required to induce change depends on the initial width and pattern. Narrowing causes a reduction of braiding intensity even when the channel pattern remains braided. Based on these results, a predictor of channel pattern change and reduction of braiding intensity, based only on channel width and width change, can be applied to aid room‐for‐river management plans for conserving or restoring braided river morphologies. Channel width provides a general criterion for the prediction of braiding intensity and channel pattern threshold illustrating the scale‐related effects on channel pattern.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".