A new role for effort dynamics in the theory of harvested populations and data-poor stock assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that population status can be predicted using catch data, but there is little justification for why these predictions work or how they account for changes in fisheries management. We demonstrate that biomass can be reconstructed from catch data whenever fishing mortality follows predictable dynamics over time (called “effort dynamics”), and we develop a state-space catch only model (SSCOM) for this purpose. We use theoretical arguments and simulation modeling to demonstrate that SSCOM can, in some cases, estimate population status from catch data. Next, we use meta-analysis to estimate effort dynamics for US West Coast groundfishes before and after fisheries management changes in the mid-1990s. We apply the SSCOM using meta-analytic results to data for eight assessed species and compare results with stock assessment and data-poor methods. Results indicate general agreement among all three methods. We conclude that effort dynamics provides a theoretical basis for using catch data to reconstruct biomass and has potential for conducting data-poor assessments. However, we still recommend that index and compositional data be collected to allow application of data-rich methods.
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 | 0.047 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".