Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian models require the specification of prior distributions for all unknown parameters, and this formal utilization of prior knowledge (if any) can be used to great advantage in some fisheries. However, regardless of whether prior knowledge about model parameters is available, specification of prior distributions is seldom unequivocal. This work addresses the problem of specifying default priors for several common fisheries models. To maintain consistency of terminology with the statistical literature, such priors are herein called reference priors to recognize that they can be interpreted as providing a sensible reference point against which the implications of alternative priors can be compared. Here, the Jeffreys' prior is demonstrated for the Ricker and BevertonHolt stockrecruit curves, von Bertalanffy growth curve, Schaefer surplus production model, and sequential population analysis. The Jeffreys' priors for relevant derived parameters are demonstrated, including the steepness parameter of the BevertonHolt stockrecruit curve. The sequential population analysis example is used to show that the Jeffreys' prior should not be automatically accepted as a reference prior in all modelsthis needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".