MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7064078929

Assessing the impact of riprap bank stabilization on fish habitat:
\nA study of Lowland and Appalachian streams in Southern Québec

2017· dissertation· en· W7064078929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiprapSTREAMSRiparian zoneHabitatTributaryTailwaterHydrology (agriculture)Fish habitatSubstrate (aquarium)Bank
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing concern over the potential environmental impacts of riverbank stabilization using rock riprap as the occurrence of these structures continues to increase in river networks. Habitat diversity and quality are often used as a proxy for fish community health. Habitat assessments, however, frequently yield contrasting results between studies and it remains unclear how non-salmonid species in small streams may be affected by bank stabilization. The aim of this thesis was to evaluate how riprap structures impact fish habitat in small Lowland and Appalachian streams by combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. Metrics measured were: mesohabitat and in-stream cover proportions, Hydro-Morphological Index of Diversity (HMID), and a modified Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Results show that in more pristine Appalachian streams, QHEI scores are lower at stabilized reaches due to loss of in-stream cover and riparian vegetation. However, riprap stabilization had less impact on already altered, straightened Lowland streams. In this latter context, some possibly beneficial alterations of fish habitat were observed in riprapped reaches due to the coarsening of the substrate and an induced increase of slope. These positive effects are, however, limited to short stabilized reaches, and extensive (> 100 m) riprapping of the bed should be avoided as it can result in the drying of the bed during summer months, as was observed in this study in some tributaries of the Salvail River. Both metrics (HMID and QHEI) revealed the positive or neutral effect of riprap on increasing flow diversity and heterogeneity for Lowlands sites with a correlation of 0.72 (p <0.01). However their effect scores are inconsistent in the Appalachian streams as only QHEI showed a negative effect of riprap, suggesting caution when interpreting habitat quality results based on a single metric.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→