MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063959456 · doi:10.1080/00288330909510014

Statistical fraud detection in a commercial lobster fishery

2009· article· en· W2063959456 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott D. J. Graham, John Hasseldine, David Paton

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsDartmouth General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterFisheryFishingBenford's lawGeographyCrustaceanBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study we introduce the first step towards a statistical model for the reliability of fisheries data. We applied Benford's Law to catch data from the Atlantic Canadian lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery's lobster fishery areas (LFAs) 33 and 34 and compared our results to those using observations from the “grey zone” (a highly regulated lobster fishery shared by Canada and United States) and a fishery with a different regulatory regime (snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio) . Non‐conformity with Benford's Law is often considered as an indicator of human manipulation of accounting data. We found that observations from the grey zone conformed to the distribution predicted by Benford's Law, whereas observations from snow crab and both lobster fishery areas did not conform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionFrench-language works237,207