An Improved Sibling Model for Forecasting Chum Salmon and Sockeye Salmon Abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The sibling model is often one of the best methods for calculating preseason forecasts of adult return abundance (recruits) for populations of Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. This model forecasts abundance of a given age-class for a given year based on the abundance of the previous age-class in the previous year. When sibling relations fit historical data well, the sibling model generally performs better than other forecasting methods, such as stock–recruitment models. However, when sibling relations are weak, better forecasts are obtained by other models, such as naïve models that simply use an historical average. We evaluated the performance of a hybrid model that used quantitative criteria for switching between a sibling model and a naïve model when generating forecasts for 21 stocks of chum salmon O. keta and 37 stocks of sockeye salmon O. nerka in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Compared with the standard sibling model, the hybrid model reduced the root mean square error (RMSE) of forecasts by an average of 27% for chum salmon stocks and 28% for sockeye salmon stocks. Compared with a naïve model, the hybrid model reduced the RMSE of forecasts by an average of 16% for chum salmon stocks and 15% for sockeye salmon stocks. Our results suggest that hybrid models can improve preseason forecasts and management of these two species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".