How robust are Bayesian posterior inferences based on a Ricker model with regards to measurement errors and prior assumptions about parameters?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a Bayesian approach of a Ricker stock-recruitment (S/R) analysis accounting for measurement errors on S/R data. We assess the sensitivity of posterior inferences to (i) the choice of Ricker model parameterizations, with special regards to management-related ones, and (ii) prior parameter distributions. Closed forms for Ricker parameter posterior distributions exist given S/R data known without error. We use this property to develop a procedure based on the RaoBlackwell formula. This procedure achieves integration of measurement errors by averaging these closed forms over possible S/R data sets sampled from distributions derived from a stochastic model relating field data to the S and R variables. High-quality Bayesian estimates are obtained. The analysis of the influence of different parameterizations and of the priors is made easier. We illustrate our methodological approach by a case study of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Posterior distributions for S and R are computed from a markrecapture stochastic model. Ignoring measurement errors underestimates parameter uncertainty and overestimates both stock productivity and density dependence. We warn against using management-related parameterizations because it makes the strong prior assumption of long-term sustainability of stocks. Posterior inferences are sensitive to the choice of prior. The use of informative priors as a remedy is discussed.
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 | 0.074 | 0.425 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".