Estimating reference fishing mortality rates from noisy spawnerrecruit data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review and evaluate methods of estimating reference fishing mortality rates from spawnerrecruit (SR) data to obtain maximum sustainable yield. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we found that a reference fishing mortality rate derived from the maximum likelihood estimates of the SR parameters was less biased than reference fishing mortality rates obtained using the mode of the marginal probability distribution for the maximum rate that spawners produce recruits or by finding the fishing mortality rate that maximizes the expected yield. However, the maximum likelihood method produced the most variable estimates, at times leading to substantial under- or over-exploitation of the population. In contrast, the decision theoretic method of maximizing the expected yield exhibited less variability, produced higher yields, and substantially reduced the risk of overexploiting the population. We show how these methods can be extended to include information from other populations. Bayesian priors for the SR parameters, obtained through meta-analyses of population dynamics at some higher organizational level (e.g., the species), may be used to assess the plausibility of parameter estimates obtained for a single population or combined with the data for the population of interest. Reference fishing mortality rates are then estimated from the resulting joint posterior distribution.
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 | 0.020 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".