MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136749560 · doi:10.1577/m06-287.1

Retrospective Evaluation of Preseason Forecasting Models for Sockeye and Chum Salmon

2008· article· en· W2136749560 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven L. Haeseker, Randall M. Peterman, Zhenming Su

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOncorhynchusFisheryStatisticsStock (firearms)Mean squared errorEconometricsMathematicsBiologyGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using comprehensive data sets for chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta (40 stocks) and sockeye salmon O. nerka (37 stocks) throughout their North American ranges, we compared the retrospective performance of 11 models in preseason forecasting of adult abundance. Chum and sockeye salmon have more complicated age structures than pink salmon O. gorbuscha, which we investigated previously (Haeseker et al. 2005), and this complexity presents new challenges as well as opportunities for forecasting. We extended our previous work to include two new forecasting models that make use of leading indicators: either the survival rate of earlier-maturing pink salmon from the same brood year (Ricker pink salmon index model) or the abundance of earlier-maturing siblings (hybrid sibling model, a new version of the standard sibling model). No single forecasting model was consistently the best for either chum or sockeye salmon, but the hybrid sibling model frequently performed best based on mean absolute error, mean percent error, and root mean square error. As was observed for pink salmon, several naïve models (i.e., simple time series models without explicitly modeled mechanisms) also performed well, as did forecast averaging models composed of two models with the least-correlated forecasting errors. In general, model ranking depended on the particular stock and performance measure used. However, even the top-ranked model for each stock explained on average only 21% of the observed interannual variation in chum salmon recruitment and only 36% of the variation in sockeye salmon recruitment. Although improvements may be possible for some stocks in specific circumstances, a major breakthrough in general forecasting ability seems unlikely given the breadth of stocks and models examined to date. Therefore, better in-season updates and adjustments to fishing regulations and a cautious approach to opening and closing fisheries should remain high priorities.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207