Simulation testing the robustness of stock assessment models to error: some results from the ICES strategic initiative on stock assessment methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The World Conference on Stock Assessment Methods (July 2013) included a workshop on testing assessment methods through simulations. The exercise was made up of two steps applied to datasets from 14 representative fish stocks from around the world. Step 1 involved applying stock assessments to datasets with varying degrees of effort dedicated to optimizing fit. Step 2 was applied to a subset of the stocks and involved characteristics of given model fits being used to generate pseudo-data with error. These pseudo-data were then provided to assessment modellers and fits to the pseudo-data provided consistency checks within (self-tests) and among (cross-tests) assessment models. Although trends in biomass were often similar across models, the scaling of absolute biomass was not consistent across models. Similar types of models tended to perform similarly (e.g. age based or production models). Self-testing and cross-testing of models are a useful diagnostic approach, and suggested that estimates in the most recent years of time-series were the least robust. Results from the simulation exercise provide a basis for guidance on future large-scale simulation experiments and demonstrate the need for strategic investments in the evaluation and development of stock assessment 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it