Maximum survival of eggs as the key parameter of stock–recruit meta-analysis: accounting for parameter and structural uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite their name, hierarchical stock–recruit meta-analyses are often parameterized in terms of steepness, which depends not only on the assumed stock–recruitment relationship but also on the recruit–spawner relationship. This parameterization requires assumptions about the reproductive potential of the recruit that are not desirable if the focus of the study is limited to the spawning–recruitment phase instead of the full life cycle. Thus, usage of steepness should be avoided in studies that aim to produce informative priors for the stock–recruit relationship for use in studies of other salmon stocks. An alternative key parameter for stock–recruit models is the maximum survival of eggs, which is the slope at the origin of the stock–recruitment curve when spawning stock size is defined in terms of the number of eggs. Furthermore, the current widely used practices in stock–recruit modeling could be improved by taking into account the stock-specific model uncertainty. We use the method of Bayesian model averaging to build a hierarchical stock–recruit model that allows stock-specific model structures with Beverton–Holt, Ricker, and hockey stick models as alternatives, all of which can be parameterized with the maximum survival of eggs. We illustrate our approach by analyzing nine previously published datasets for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
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 | 0.092 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".