MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2022764736 · doi:10.1139/f06-045

A hierarchical model for salmon run reconstruction and application to the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>) fishery

2006· article· en· W2022764736 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucy Flynn, André E. Punt, Ray Hilborn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsOncorhynchusBayFisheryChinook windFishingFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceOceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of spreading the annual catch of a Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) run proportionally across all segments of the migration is rendered difficult or impossible because of the interannual variability in both run size and run timing. This problem is particularly acute in the case of the fishery for sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Bristol Bay, Alaska, for which traditional run reconstruction models are not applicable because of the extreme temporal compression of the run. We develop a run reconstruction model appropriate for sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay by accounting for the hierarchical structure of the problem and by including process error. Our results indicate that the hierarchical structure is, in fact, not necessary, whereas the process error parameters are needed to fit the data. We suggest further model development without the hierarchical structure, including incorporating in-river test fishing data. The results of our method can be used to address questions regarding environmental or intrinsic drivers of run timing and the possibility of artificial selection on run timing.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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