Interpreting the collapse of the northern cod stock from survey and catch data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequential population analysis reconstructions of the northern cod (Gadus morhus) stock using survey and catch data formed the basis for the scientific advice for substantial reductions in catch quotas in the late 1980s. However, the model failed to provide acceptable reconstructions of the population in subsequent stock assessments when data for the 1990s were added. The model assumes constant age-independent instantaneous rate of natural mortality, accurate catch reporting, and a constant linear relationship between the survey index at age and the population size at age. It seems likely that one or more of these assumptions failed to hold around the time of the collapse. Diagnostic studies were carried out to determine the magnitude of the departure from the assumptions required to allow the model to fit the data. Information related to changes in natural mortality, fishing activity, and survey catchability is reviewed to evaluate the plausibility of departures from model assumptions of the magnitude estimated. It is concluded that unreported deaths caused by the offshore fishery may be most plausible as the main contributing factor to lack of model fit but that factors such as increased natural mortality, and possibly changes in survey catchability, also played a role.
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 | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".