Cutting edge: A comparison of contemporary practices of riparian buffer retention around headwaters in Canada, Finland and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These data describe 286 small streams in Canada, Sweden and Finland and the conditions of their riparian buffers. All the study streams were subject to forest harvest between 2010 and 2016 and riparian buffers were left by forest practitioners. We measured number of stream physical properties (size, substrate, channel forms) and the conditions of the associated riparian buffers (width, tree composition, age structure). We further assessed other impairments caused by forestry operations such as machine tracks in the riparian area, drainage ditches connected to the streams, and stream crossing. Those data are also available in the database. Table S3. The separately uploaded table contains data which were used for analyzing riparian buffer widths and the factors affecting it (catchment area, riparian slope and clearcut size), as well as Impairment Index for all sites in all three countries. Table S4-S6. These separately uploaded tables contain all data from the Canadian, Finnish and Swedish sites used in the study, including information on the buffer width and composition, stream properties, impairments, site names, site information and buffer functions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".