MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098504851 · doi:10.1139/f08-197

A sequential Bayesian methodology to estimate movement and exploitation rates using electronic and conventional tag data: application to Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

2009· article· en· W2098504851 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hiroyuki Kurota, Murdoch K. McAllister, Gareth L. Lawson, Jacob I. Nogueira, Steven L. H. Teo, Barbara A. Block

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTunaThunnusFishingPelagic zoneStock assessmentScombridaeFisheryBayesian probabilityGeographyMark and recaptureStatisticsEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>MathematicsDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a Bayesian methodology to estimate fishing mortality rates and transoceanic migration rates of highly migratory pelagic fishes that integrates multiple sources of tagging data and auxiliary information from prior knowledge. Exploitation rates and movement rates for Atlantic bluefin tuna ( Thunnus thynnus ) are estimated by fitting a spatially structured model to three types of data obtained from pop-up satellite, archival, and conventional tags for the period 1990–2006 in the western North Atlantic. A sequential Bayesian statistical approach is applied in which the key components of the model are separated and fitted sequentially to data sets pertinent to each component with the posterior probability density function (pdf) of parameters from one analysis serving as the prior pdf for the next. The approach sequentially updates the estimates of age-specific fishing mortality rates (F) and transoceanic movement rates (T). Estimates of recent F are higher than the estimated rate of natural mortality and higher in the east than in the west. Estimates of annual T from the west to the east are higher for larger fish (6% for ages 0–3 to 16% for ages 9+). These estimates are also higher than those obtained from tagging studies before the 1990s and could be associated with changes in stock composition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations51
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207