Estimation of Fish Abundance Indices Based on Scientific Research Trawl Surveys
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fish abundance index over an ocean region is defined here to be the integral of expected catch per unit effort (CPUE), approximated by the sum of expected CPUE over grid squares. When trawl surveys are done within grid squares selected according to a probability sampling design, several other sources of variation such as the fish population dynamics and the catching process are also involved. In such situations model-assisted methods for estimating abundance, assessed under both design and model perspectives, have some advantages over purely design-based methods such as the Horvitz-Thompson (HT) estimator or purely model-based prediction approaches. This article develops model-assisted empirical likelihood (EL) methods via loglinear regression and nonparametric smoothing. The methods are applied to grid surveys of the Grand Bank region carried out annually by Fishery Products International from 1996 through 2002. The HT and EL methods produce similar point estimates of abundance indices. Simulation results, however, indicate that the EL estimator under local linear smoothing is associated with smaller standard errors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it