Development of a Stock–Recruitment Model and Assessment of Biological Reference Points for the Lake Erie Walleye Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We developed an updated stock–recruitment relationship for Lake Erie Walleye Sander vitreus using the Akaike information criterion model selection approach. Our best stock–recruitment relationship was a Ricker spawner–recruit function to which spring warming rate was added as an environmental variable, and this regression model explained 39% of the variability in Walleye recruitment over the 1978 through 2006 year-classes. Thus, most of the variability in Lake Erie Walleye recruitment appeared to be attributable to factors other than spawning stock size and spring warming rate. The abundance of age-0 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum, which was an important term in previous models, may still be an important factor for Walleye recruitment, but poorer ability to monitor Gizzard Shad since the late 1990s could have led to that term failing to appear in our best model. Secondly, we used numerical simulation to demonstrate how to use the stock recruitment relationship to characterize the population dynamics (such as stable age structure, carrying capacity, and maximum sustainable yield) and some biological reference points (such as fishing rates at different important biomass or harvest levels) for an age-structured population in a deterministic way. Received September 21, 2012; accepted July 2, 2013
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".