MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2101953834 · doi:10.1139/f04-138

Optimum sampling levels in discard sampling programs

2004· article· en· W2101953834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Borges, Alain F. Zuur, Emer Rogan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHavforskningsinstituttet
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)FishingStatisticsEconometricsSampling schemeMultistage samplingComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceOperations researchFisheryMathematicsTelecommunicationsEstimatorBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents optimum sampling levels in discard sampling programs considering cost and precision objectives simultaneously and explores their dependence on both variables. The analysis is based on the Irish discard program: an onboard-observer voluntary sampling scheme aimed at estimating discard rates in trawl fisheries. Multistage analysis was performed to establish the precision levels achieved in the past, and a cost function was determined to estimate the financial cost of the program. Gear, fishing ground, targeted species, and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) divisions were the main factors affecting discarding, together with random effects of the three nested groups considered: haul, trip, and vessel. Reductions in the present budget will imply only marginal decreases in precision, although changes in cost variables can have an impact on sampling levels. On the other hand, increasing the target precision by one-half will imply a considerable increase in sampling and associated cost, which will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. Finally, the analysis by fleet components suggests a marked increase in sampling levels, which emphasizes the importance of clearly stated discard sampling objectives.

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)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→