MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096205555 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu055

Time-varying natural mortality in fisheries stock assessment models: identifying a default approach

2014· article· en· W2096205555 on OpenAlexaff
Kelli F. Johnson, Cole C. Monnahan, Carey R. McGilliard, Katyana A. Vert-pre, Sean C. Anderson, Curry J. Cunningham, Felipe Hurtado-Ferro, Roberto Licandeo, Melissa L. Muradian, Kotaro Ono, Cody Szuwalski, Juan L. Valero, Athol R. Whitten, André E. Punt

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock assessmentFishingStock (firearms)EconometricsPopulationStatisticsFisheryMonte Carlo methodEnvironmental scienceMathematicsGeographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A typical assumption used in most fishery stock assessments is that natural mortality (M) is constant across time and age. However, M is rarely constant in reality as a result of the combined impacts of exploitation history, predation, environmental factors, and physiological trade-offs. Misspecification or poor estimation of M can lead to bias in quantities estimated using stock assessment methods, potentially resulting in biased estimates of fishery reference points and catch limits, with the magnitude of bias being influenced by life history and trends in fishing mortality. Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the ability of statistical age-structured population models to estimate spawning-stock biomass, fishing mortality, and total allowable catch when the true M was age-invariant, but time-varying. Configurations of the stock assessment method, implemented in Stock Synthesis, included a single age- and time-invariant M parameter, specified at one of the three levels (high, medium, and low) or an estimated M. The min–max (i.e. most robust) approach to specifying M when it is thought to vary across time was to estimate M. The least robust approach for most scenarios examined was to fix M at a high value, suggesting that the consequences of misspecifying M are asymmetric.

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 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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207