A statistical model for in-season forecasts of sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>) returns to the Bristol Bay districts of Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a model for in-season age-specific forecasts of salmon returns using preseason return forecasts, age composition of in-season returns, cumulative in-season returns by fishing district, and age composition and an index of abundance from an in-season test fishery. We apply this method to the sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) fishery in the Bristol Bay districts of Alaska. The model generates point estimates and Bayesian probability distributions for return numbers by age and river, and it provides an integrated framework for including all of the major data sources currently used in in-season forecasting. We evaluated model performance using early-season data from 19992001 and compared the effects of four information sets on forecast accuracy. The four information sets were as follows: I, district-specific inshore return data; II, inshore return data and test fishery data; III, inshore return data and preseason forecasts; IV, inshore return data, test fishery data, and preseason forecasts. Forecasts from information sets II, III, and IV were less biased than those from information set I. However, in terms of the forecast interval, forecasts from information set II were best because the 95% highest posterior density regions of forecasts from information set II covered the actual returns most frequently.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".