Expected future performance of salmon abundance forecast models with varying complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the scope for improving abundance forecasts for fishery management using Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as a case study. A range of forecast models that related the Sacramento Index (SI; an index of adult ocean abundance) to jack (estimated age 2) spawning escapement the previous year were considered. Alternative models incorporated effects of density dependence, local environmental conditions, the abundance of the previous cohort, and trends or autocorrelation in the jack-to-SI relationship. Forecast performance was assessed in terms of bias, accuracy, ability to track trends in the SI, and management objectives. Several models achieved higher accuracy than the model used for management, but no single model performed best across all criteria, and substantial forecast error remained across all approaches considered. Environmental models generally performed better than the management model, but there were differences in the relative importance of individual environmental variables over time and among model formulations. Accounting for model selection uncertainty in environmental models decreased their forecast performance. Simpler models often had similar or better performance than environmental models. In particular, the model incorporating temporally autocorrelated errors demonstrated potential for modest forecast improvement with relatively little additional model complexity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".