Evaluating analytical approaches for estimating pelagic fish biomass using simulated fish communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pelagic fish assessments often combine large amounts of acoustic-based fish density data and limited midwater trawl information to estimate species-specific biomass density. We compared the accuracy of five apportionment methods for estimating pelagic fish biomass density using simulated communities with known fish numbers that mimic Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Ontario, representing a range of fish community complexities. Across all apportionment methods, the error in the estimated biomass generally declined with increasing effort, but methods that accounted for community composition changes with water column depth performed best. Correlations between trawl catch and the true species composition were highest when more fish were caught, highlighting the benefits of targeted trawling in locations of high fish density. Pelagic fish surveys should incorporate geographic and water column depth stratification in the survey design, use apportionment methods that account for species-specific depth differences, target midwater trawling effort in areas of high fish density, and include at least 15 midwater trawls. With relatively basic biological information, simulations of fish communities and sampling programs can optimize effort allocation and reduce error in biomass estimates.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".