Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS) plans, coordinates, and imple-ments demersal trawl surveys and hydroacoustic surveys in the Baltic Sea including the Baltic International Acoustic Survey (BIAS), the Baltic Acoustic Spring Survey (BASS), and the Baltic International Trawl Surveys (BITS) in the 1st and 4th quarter on an annual basis. The group com-piles results from these surveys and provides the herring, sprat, cod and flatfish abundance in-dices for the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) to use as tuning fleets. \nIn 2023, WGBIFS completed the following tasks: (1) compiled survey results from 2022 and the first half of 2023, (2) planned and coordinated all Baltic fish stocks assessment relevant surveys for the second half of 2023 and the first half of 2024, (3) updated the common survey manuals according to decisions made during the annual WGBIFS meeting. Data from the recent BITS was added to the ICES Database of Trawl Surveys (DATRAS). The Tow-Database was corrected and updated. The Access-databases for aggregated acoustic data and the ICES database of acoustic-trawl surveys for disaggregated data were updated. All countries registered collected litter ma-terials to DATRAS. \nThe area coverage and the number of control hauls in the BASS, BIAS and GRAHS in 2022 were considered to be appropriate to the calculation of tuning indices and the data can be used for the assessment of Baltic herring and sprat stocks. The number of valid hauls accomplished during the 4th quarter 2022 and 1st quarter 2023 BITS were considered by the group as appropriate to tuning series and the data can be used for the assessment of Baltic and Kattegat cod and flatfish stocks. BIAS and BASS survey sampling variance calculation questions were discussed and standard deviation for Central Baltic herring acoustic index series calculated. \nIn comparison exercises between the StoX survey computational method and traditional IBAS calculation methods it was found that the StoX project, developed for the WGBIFS, has small methodological differences compared to the standard calculation method used by the group, as specified in the Manual for the International Baltic Acoustic Surveys (IBAS), and is thereby caus-ing a small difference in the total number of herring and sprat., The work with transition to a more transparent calculation software (e.g. StoX) will continue during the next period with more thorough analysis of calculation methodologies. \nA further comparison exercise between the StoX method and traditional Gulf of Riga Herring Survey calculation method was performed using data from 11 last years. It showed no major differences in herring total abundance estimates for most of the years. However, notable differ-ences were in the age compositions of those two methods. Some errors and differences in input data (uploaded into the ICES database) were found and therefore the further analysis was post-poned until these issues are fixed. \nWGBIFS is planning to continue with analogical comparison exercises in the coming years before the final transition to a transparent reproducible pathway into the ICES Transparent Assessment Framework (TAF) can be done. Work towards transitioning to TAF will continue during the next 3-year period until all methodological and database differences are resolved. \nInquiries from other ICES expert groups were discussed and addressed.
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 | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,011 |
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 ».