A random effects population dynamics model based on proportions-at-age and removal data for estimating total mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catch curves are widely used to estimate total mortality for exploited marine populations. The usual population dynamics model assumes constant recruitment across years and constant total mortality. We extend this to include annual recruitment and annual total mortality. Recruitment is treated as an uncorrelated random effect, while total mortality is modelled by a random walk. Data requirements are minimal as only proportions-at-age and total catches are needed. We obtain the effective sample size for aggregated proportion-at-age data based on fitting Dirichlet-multinomial distributions to the raw sampling data. Parameter estimation is carried out by approximate likelihood. We use simulations to study parameter estimability and estimation bias of four model versions, including models treating mortality as fixed effects and misspecified models. All model versions were, in general, estimable, though for certain parameter values or replicate runs they were not. Relative estimation bias of final year total mortalities and depletion rates were lower for the proposed random effects model compared with the fixed effects version for total mortality. The model is demonstrated for the case of blue ling (Molva dypterygia) to the west of the British Isles for the period 1988 to 2011.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".