Performance of Hydraulic Models Compared to Geomorphological and Botanical Approaches to Delineate the Ordinary High Water Mark for Small Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineates the water environment from the land environment. The preferred method for the OHWM delineation in Québec, Canada, is a method based solely on bank vegetation characteristics, positioning the botanical OHWM (BOHWM) at the transition from hydrophytic to terrestrial vegetation. However, in anthropized landscapes, the implementation of this botanical method is problematic due to vegetation disturbance on the shoreline or riverbanks. The hydraulic and geomorphological methods position the OHWM at the 2‐year flood line and at the bankfull level of the river, respectively. The aim of this study was to compare the position of the 2‐year flood line to the BOHWM and to the geomorphological bankfull level for rivers located in agricultural, urban and forest areas. Results showed that the best concordance between the 2‐year flood line and the BOHWM was in agricultural areas (mean distance = 1.31 m) and the least in forest areas (mean distance = 3.31 m). The best agreement between the 2‐year flood line and the geomorphological method was found in agricultural (mean distance = 1.27 m) and urban (mean distance = 1.67 m) areas, while these two methods disagreed the most in forest areas (mean distance = 3.55 m).
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) | 0.000 | 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".