MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6906723946 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.19280867

Report of the Workshop on the Analysis of the Benchmark of Cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel) and Division IIIa (Skagerrak) (WKCOD 2011)

2011· report· en· W6906723946 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) · 2011
Typereport
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuarter (Canadian coin)Division (mathematics)Benchmark (surveying)Stock (firearms)Stock assessmentSurvey data collection

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The ICES workshop on the analysis of the benchmark of cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel) and Division IIIa (Skagerrak), WKCOD, met at the ICES headquarters (Copenhagen) during February 7–9, 2011. There were 19 participants from seven countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Spain, and UK), of which three participants were industry representatives and one was an external reviewer. The meeting was chaired by Einar Hjorleifsson (Iceland). The meeting was designed to serve as an inter-benchmark protocol for the North Sea cod assessment and was tasked with reviewing the input data used and the assess-ment model and settings, proposing changes to them if deemed appropriate. Additional work, if required, was also to be identified. A consensus of the data input, model assumptions and framework to be used in the 2011 cod assessment was reached at the WKCOD meeting. The conflict in the IBTS quarter 1 vs. quarter 3 surveys, an issue raised by the WGNSSK in 2010, was not fully resolved. The abundance indices in the quarter 1 survey were considered to more likely reflect stock trends in recent years, because of suspected changes in catchability in the quarter 3 survey in relation to recent changes in the spatial distribution of fish in the latter part of the year. It is recommended that further investigation be ad-dressed within a working group on improving use of survey data for assessment and advice (suggested ToRs are in WKCOD report). Additionally, using both surveys in the assessment results in trends in unallocated removals that go against the prevail-ing hypothesis that the bias in landings in particular and potentially in discards esti-mates in recent years have declined compared with the earlier period. For these reasons it was agreed to use only the quarter 1 survey in the assessment for the time being. The current assessment model (B-ADAPT) was considered to be too responsive to the noise levels in the surveys in recent years to form the basis for providing advice to a management regime which is based on the final year estimates of fishing mortality. An alternative model, SAM, which smoothes fishing mortality was adopted as the basis for an interim period (~two years) of assessments because of the more stable estimates of fishing mortality. The SAM model is considered an interim solution be-cause it estimates bias in the total catch in the same way as the previous assessment model, whereas a model that estimates bias in landings and discards separately is considered a more suitable long-term solution. Although the SAM model structure agreed at WKCOD is considered the most ap-propriate that could be fitted in the time available, a refined model structure will only be completed with further work. Consequently, WKCOD consider that if further re-finements are found to be required before the WGNSSK 2011 meeting, these be presented to that meeting for adoption (WGNSSK comprises a large part of WKCOD participants). In the medium term WKCOD considered that the development of a model structure that models discard and landings separately is required due to the differing levels of noise associated with each data set. WKCOD recommended that the reference points are not revised in the short term until the assessment model has been finalised. It was concluded that the factors for ”unallocated mortality” estimated for North Sea cod were in agreement with the general perception of the extent of underreporting except for the most recent years. However, it was also recognized that ”unallocated mortality” in general is a result of discrepancies between model assumptions and observations. Alternative model assumptions, such as changes in natural mortality or survey catchability, might also explain the patterns observed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,060
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,060
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,317

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0600,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,004
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0070,003
Science ouverte0,0030,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,229
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,087 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)Travaux en français237 207