Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent failures of important fish stocks give mathematical models a poor reputation as tools for fishery management. This paper examines the role of models in fish stock assessment and identifies reasons why they can fail. Starting with laws of arithmetic, models attempt to relate observed data to unknown quantities, such as the stock biomass and abundance. Typically, the number of unknowns greatly exceeds the number of observations, and models must impose hypothetical constraints to give useful estimates. We use the word "fishmetic" (rhymes with arithmetic) to represent uncertainty in the conversion of arithmetic to practical fishery models. Arbitrary assumptions cannot be avoided, even though different choices can greatly influence the outcome of the analysis. We compare the modeling process in fisheries with that in other sciences. World literature also offers useful analogies. Potential reasons for failure suggest possible improvements to the application of fishery models. We recommend that modelers remain skeptical, expand their knowledge base, apply common sense, and implement robust strategies for fishery management. Particularly creative thought must be applied to the problem of translating scientific knowledge into management practice. Comparisons between fish stocks and financial stocks illustrate some possibilities.
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 | 0.030 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".