Simulating and testing the sensitivity of ecosystem-based indicators to fishing in the southern Benguela ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitivity of size-based, species-based, and trophodynamic indicators is examined for the fish community of the southern Benguela ecosystem (South Africa) through simulations of different fishing scenarios using the multispecies model OSMOSE. The simulations suggest that it may be erroneous to consider one absolute reference direction of change for any indicator because the direction of change is specific to both the multispecies assemblage and the fishing scenario considered. The analysis of species versus community indicators is helpful for understanding which processes drive the emergent properties of the ecosystem. Informative about the structure and state of the ecosystem, both types of indicators weighted by biomass or by abundance should be used to evaluate ecosystem changes. Indicators characterizing size distribution (e.g., slope of size spectrum) appear to be more helpful in distinguishing the cause of ecosystem changes than mean community indicators because their response is specific to the fishing scenario simulated (i.e., global or hake-targeting fishing). Some indicators do not seem to be sensitive to fishing pressure (slope of the diversity size spectrum) or do not vary consistently with other studies (W statistic).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".