A stochastic approach to stock reduction analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock reduction analysis (SRA) can complement more detailed assessment methods by using long-term historical catches to estimate recruitment rates needed to have produced those catches, yet still end up with stock sizes near those estimated by the detailed methods. A longer historical perspective can also add information to the estimation of reference points such as unfished biomass (B0) or target biomass (BMSY). Deterministic SRA models provide a single stock size trajectory that is vanishingly unlikely to have actually occurred, while stochastic SRA attempts to provide probability distributions for stock size over time under alternative hypotheses about unfished recruitment rates and about variability around assumed stockrecruitment relationships. These distributions can be generated with age-structured population models by doing large numbers of Monte Carlo simulation trials and retaining those sample trials for which the stock would not have been driven to extinction by historical catches. By resampling from these trials using likelihood weights (sampling importance resampling method), it is possible to move into fully Bayesian, statespace assessment modeling through a series of straightforward steps and to provide understandable visualization of how much the data help to reduce uncertainty about historical fishing impacts and stock status.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".