Urban Ontario River Regimes: An Analysis of Four Major Watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of urbanization on river systems are not well understood as appropriate field parameters for representing such changes require years of consistent monitoring data for an accurate comparison. Furthermore, due to their varying degrees of urbanization and management efforts, conditions are not consistent even within the same watersheds so representative sites are difficult to distinguish. This level of data is not typically available for watersheds in Ontario due to budget and personnel constraints of organizations undertaking such monitoring activities. To direct monitoring and management efforts more effectively, a comparative aerial imagery analysis was undertaken for a ~50-year timeline for twenty study sites across the Mimico Creek, Etobicoke Creek, Highland Creek, and Duffins Creek watersheds as well as a comprehensive field analysis to characterize current conditions. A statistical analysis that included a Pearson correlation coefficient analysis and stepwise regression utilizing values obtained through the Stream Power Index for Networks (SPIN) tool and manual calculations including three ratios from Wood-Smith & Buffington (1996) was also completed. These ratios included: bankfull width (Wbf)/bankfull depth (hbf), D50/bankfull depth (hbf), and critical shear stress (τc50)/bankfull shear stress (τbf). Results indicated a strongly negative correlation between entrenchment and the Wbf⁄hbf ratio and positive correlations of varying strengths between the τc50⁄τbf ratio and both the Wbf⁄hbf and D50⁄hbf ratios. Though weak, percent imperviousness and specific stream power were able to predict the τc50⁄τbf ratio. Finally, t-tests between sites categorized as “rural” (≤30% imperviousness) and “urban” (>30% imperviousness) revealed when a control is placed on drainage area, increases in specific stream power, D50, bankfull width, bankfull depth, and slope is observed in “urban” areas. It is believed that such statistical parameters could be considered applicable as a first order estimate of further stream pattern analyses but are not strong enough correlations to be utilized for design purposes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".