Status Assessments - Some Consequences of Using Different Salmon Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Irvine, J. R. and D. G. Chen. 2004. Status Assessments – Some Consequences of Using Different Salmon Indices. (NPAFC Doc. 808). 10 p. At the eleventh annual meeting of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission in 2003, the Working Group on Stock Assessment discussed the possibility of assembling data other than catch to assess the status of salmon. In this report we apply a consistent analytical approach to several data types frequently used to index Pacific salmon in Canada. We compare results using different data types by examining the influence of three recent regime shifts. Conclusions from our evaluation of effects from the 1977 and 1989 regime shifts depended on which of three salmon abundance indices (catch, escapement, and total returns) and two survival indices (marine survival and recruits per spawner) were used. For instance, abundance shifts did not necessarily correspond with changes in survival, and regional variations existed, at least for coho. Results from our analysis confirm that different interpretations of salmon “status” may result, depending on which index is used.
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 | 0.079 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".