MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2075535485 · doi:10.1139/f01-155

Detecting environmental regimes in fish stock-recruitment relationships by fuzzy logic

2001· article· en· W2075535485 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ding‐Geng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPacific herringHalibutFuzzy logicStock assessmentStock (firearms)FisheryHerringEconometricsComputer scienceClupeaGeographyFishingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fuzzy logic approach is developed to model and test the impact of environmental regimes on fish stock–recruitment relationships. Traditional methods use environmental variables to classify stock–recruitment data into different membership percentiles followed by fitting the stock–recruitment models for each subset. In contrast, the fuzzy logic approach uses a continuous membership function to provide a rational basis for the classification. Thus, parameter estimation is based on a more logically consistent foundation without resorting to subjective partitions. This new approach is applied to herring stock from the west coast of Vancouver Island (Clupea harengus pallasi) using sea surface temperature as the environmental variable and to Pacific halibut stock (Hippoglossus stenolepis) using the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as the environmental variable. From these applications, the herring stock–recruitment relationships were found to vary significantly during different regimes, whereas this was not the case for halibut. However, in both instances, the fuzzy logic approach demonstrated that density-dependent effects differed between regimes. The fuzzy logic model consistently outperformed traditional approaches as measured by several diagnostic criteria. Because fuzzy logic models address uncertainty better than traditional approaches, they have the potential to improve our ability to understand factors influencing stock–recruitment relationships and thereby manage fisheries more effectively.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→