Application of statistical model selection criteria to the Stock Synthesis assessment program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical modeling involves building sufficiently complex models to represent the system being investigated. Overly complex models lead to imprecise parameter estimates, increase the subjective role of the modeler, and can distort the perceived characteristics of the system under investigation. One approach for controlling the tendency to increased complexity and subjectivity is to use model selection criteria that account for these factors. The effectiveness of two selection criteria was tested in an application with the stock assessment program known as Stock Synthesis. This program, which is often used on the U.S. west coast to assess the status of exploited marine fish stocks, can handle multiple data sets and mimic highly complex population dynamics. The Akaike information criterion and Schwarz's Bayesian information criterion are criteria that satisfy the fundamental principles of model selection: goodness-of-fit, parsimony, and objectivity. Their ability to select the correct model form and produce accurate estimates was evaluated in Monte Carlo experiments with the Stock Synthesis program. In general, the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion had similar performance in selecting the correct model, and they produced comparable levels of accuracy in their estimates of ending stock biomass.
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 | 0.048 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".