MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057443480 · doi:10.1111/fme.12080

Improved estimation and forecasts of stock maturities using generalised linear mixed models with auto‐correlated random effects

2014· article· en· W2057443480 on OpenAlexafffund
Noel G. Cadigan, M. J. Morgan, John Brattey

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Management and Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGadusEconometricsStatisticsEstimationBinomial distributionNegative binomial distributionMathematicsStock (firearms)PopulationFisheryGeographyBiologyDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Estimation of proportion mature‐at‐age is an important component of the estimation of stock productivity. Current methods estimate maturity‐at‐age in each year or cohort independently. However, cohorts that are alive in the population at the same time are expected to experience similar conditions and therefore have similar maturity trajectories. Methods to take advantage of this information using binomial time series models with over‐dispersion are presented to improve the estimation of maturity‐at‐age, with applications to example populations of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua Linnaeus, and American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides (Fabricius). An auto‐correlated beta‐binomial model fit the data well compared to other models investigated and improved forecasts of maturities for both populations. Use of an auto‐correlated beta‐binomial model should lead to improvements in projections of stock status and, hence, improvements in fisheries management advice.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries Management and EcologySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207