MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018974365 · doi:10.1139/f01-175

Individual-based yield-per-recruit analysis, with an application to the Atlantic sea scallop, <i>Placopecten</i> <i>magellanicus</i>

2001· article· en· W2018974365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah R. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingScallopFisheryCommercial fishingStock (firearms)BiologyStock assessmentEconometricsEcologyEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There can be considerable variation in fishing mortality risk among individuals in a stock, especially for sedentary or sessile species. An individual-based per-recruit model is proposed that can systematically deal with variability in fishing mortality among recruits. These variations can alter the yield per recruit (YPR) and biomass per recruit (BPR) that would be predicted from conventional theory. Where the YPR curve is concave, standard theory will tend to overestimate YPR, whereas the opposite will be true where the YPR curve is convex. Additionally, variations in fishing mortality among individuals can create a mismatch between conventional metrics of mean fishing mortality and that required to properly apply standard per-recruit theory. The concept of "recruit-weighted" fishing mortality is introduced to deal with this problem. An application of the model to the Atlantic sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, is presented that demonstrates that standard per-recruit theory may often misrepresent true YPR and BPR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207