MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149012499 · doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.04.009

Did over-reliance on commercial catch rate data precipitate the collapse of northern cod?

2005· article· en· W2149012499 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. A. Shelton

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Stock assessmentEconometricsPopulation sizeCalibrationPopulationEnvironmental scienceFisheryStatisticsOceanographyGeographyMathematicsGeologyDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has been suggested that a number of “lessons” can be learned from the collapse of the northern cod stock off Newfoundland and Labrador. However, not all purported lessons have been validated with available data. One lesson is thought to be that over-reliance on commercial catch rate data and an incorrect assumption regarding the functional relationship between catch rate and population size were major contributors to overestimating stock size, precipitating the collapse. The current study describes calibration approaches used in assessments, and evaluates alternative functional relationships between commercial catch rates and stock size. In addition, historical population size is re-estimated using only research vessel data and compared with estimates obtained based on both commercial catch rate and research vessel data. Calibration with commercial catch rate contributed to overestimating stock size in some years, but there is no evidence that the assumed functional relationship between commercial catch rate and population size was a significant factor in the collapse.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207