Proceedings of the International Workshop on age determination of oceanic pelagic fishes: Tunas, billfishes, and sharks, Miami, Florida, February 15-18,1982
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Accurate and precise estimates of age and growth rates are essential parameters in understanding the population dynamics of fishes. Some of the more sophisticated stock assessment models, such as virtual population analysis, require age and growth information to partition catchdata by age. Stock assessment efforts by regulatory agencies are usually directed at specific fisherieswhich are being heavily exploited and are suspected of being overfished. Interest in stock assessment of some of the oceanic pelagic fishes (tunas, billfishes, and sharks) has developed only over the last decade, during which exploitation has increased steadily in response to increases in worldwide demand for these resources.Traditionally, estimating the age of fishes has been done by enumerating growth bands on skeletal hardparts, through length frequency analysis, tag and recapture studies, and raising fish in enclosures. However, problems related to determining the age of some of the oceanic pelagic fishesare unique compared with other species. For example, sampling is difficult for these large, highly mobile fishes because of their size, extensive distributions throughout the world's oceans, and for some, such as the marlins, infrequent catches. In addition, movements of oceanic pelagic fishes often transect temperate as well as tropical oceans, making interpretation of growth bands onskeletal hardparts more difficult than with more sedentary temperate species. Many oceanic pelagics are also long-lived, attaining ages in excess of 30 yr, and more often than not, their life cycles do not lend themselves easily to artificial propagation and culture. These factors contribute to the difficulty of determining ages and are generally characteristic of this group-the tunas, billfishes, and sharks. Accordingly, the rapidly growing international concern in managing oceanic pelagic fishes, as well as unique difficulties in ageing these species, prompted us to hold this workshop.Our two major objectives for this workshop are to: I) Encourage the interchange of ideas on this subject, and 2) establish the "state of the art." A total of 65 scientists from 10 states in the continental United States and Hawaii, three provinces in Canada, France, Republic of Senegal,Spain, Mexico, Ivory Coast, and New South Wales (Australia) attended the workshop held at the Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Fla., 15-18 February 1982.Our first objective, encouraging the interchange of ideas, is well illustrated in the summaries of the Round Table Discussions and in the Glossary, which defines terms used in this volume. The majority of the workshop participants agreed that the lack of validation of age estimates and themeans to accomplish the same are serious problems preventing advancements in assessing the age and growth of fishes, particularly oceanic pelagics. The alternatives relating to the validation problem were exhaustively reviewed during the Round Table Discussions and are a major highlight of this workshop. How well we accomplished our second objective, to establish the "state of the art" on age determination of oceanic pelagic fishes, will probably best be judged on the basis of these proceedings and whether future research efforts are directed at the problem areas we have identified.In order to produce high-quality papers, workshop participants served as referees for the manuscripts published in this volume. Several papers given orally at the workshop, and included in these proceedings, were summarized from full-length manuscripts, which have been submitted to or published in other scientific outlets-these papers are designated as SUMMARY PAPERS. In addition, the SUMMARY PAPER designation was also assigned to workshop papers that represented very preliminary or initial stages of research, cursory progress reports, papers that weredata shy, or provide only brief reviews on general topics. Bilingual abstracts were included for allpapers that required translation.We gratefully acknowledge the support of everyone involved in this workshop. Funding was provided by the Southeast Fisheries Center, and Jack C. Javech did the scientific illustrations appearing on the cover, between major sections, and in the Glossary. (PDF file contains 228 pages.)
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,056 | 0,026 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».