Evaluating the reliability and equitability of at-sea observer release reports in the B.C. offshore groundfish trawl fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At-sea observer release reports must be reliable for stock assessment accuracy, and equitable for individual transferable quota management programme validity. However, reliability and equitability may be compromised when harvesters benefit economically from under-reported releases. For example, harvesters in the British Columbia offshore groundfish trawl benefit from under-reported marketable released sablefish and dead released halibut. When monitoring programmes provide essential data for management, a review of the programme's veracity is required. In this analysis, releases are predicted using environmental, social and economic predictors, and then compared with reported releases. Compared to the average individual, some observers report more- or less-than-expected releases, and some skippers have more- or less-than-expected releases deducted from quota. However, these weights appear to be negligible for both species. The analysis does not provide strong reasons to suspect that release data are unreliable or inequitable for their intended purpose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".