MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DESIGNING FISHERY MODELS: A PERSONAL ADVENTURE

2003· article· en· W2079520955 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resource Modeling · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityComputer scienceAdventureProcess (computing)Management scienceOperations researchFisheryArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT. This paper describes my experiences designing fishery models, starting from a mathematical background in the differential equations of theoretical physics. Three examples from my early research, cited by Quinn in the lead article for this issue, illustrate a historical approach to model design. Although such analytical results provide useful tools for thought, they sometimes gloss over important assumptions and limitations. I describe the series of questions that led me from simple models to a more complete statistical framework, involving state space models and Bayes statistics. Modern fishery models often grow into complex structures that depend on numerous arbitrary choices about underlying deterministic processes, process error, and measurement error. Given this inherent ambiguity and uncertainty, I discuss scientific limits to quantitative fishery models and future prospects for devising robust management algorithms.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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