MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2020781869 · doi:10.1139/f05-064

Estimation of change in lifetime egg production from length frequency data

2005· article· en· W2020781869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael R. O’Farrell, Louis W. Botsford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries Service
KeywordsStatisticsPoint estimationEnvironmental scienceEstimationSample size determinationFisherySampling (signal processing)MathematicsEconometricsBiologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The percentage of unfished lifetime egg production (LEP) has been used to represent persistence in precautionary fisheries management, but estimation of this reference point requires substantial data and it is sensitive to errors in natural mortality rate. We present an estimation method that quantifies the change in LEP by a fishery when only length frequency samples, one early in the fishery and one recent, are available for assessment. Using simulated length frequency data with known parameter values, estimates of LEP had undetectable bias when challenged with random sampling variability and sample sizes as low as 100. Simulation of artificial data with (i) growth parameters that differed from the estimation model, (ii) transient size structures, and (iii) recruitment variability led to predictably biased estimates. In a direct comparison with the spawning potential ratio reference point, fractional LEP was much less sensitive to errors in natural mortality rate. Application of this method to length frequency data for blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) for years between 1980 and 2003 suggests that during this interval, LEP has been reduced to levels of concern.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→