Consideration of uncertainty in the design and use of harvest control rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harvest control rules are widely used by management agencies for decision-making and for promoting public awareness of the status of marine and freshwater fisheries. Many current control rules combine fishing mortality and biomass-based biological reference points. Control rules were introduced as a precaution against the influence of uncertainty and to decrease the risk of overfishing, but are compromised if the uncertainties of the biological reference points are not explicitly considered. Uncertainty has been widely acknowledged but has not been incorporated into control rule design and application. In this paper, we used a Bayesian statistical catch-at-age model to estimate uncertainties in the indicators of fishing mortality, population size, and biological reference points. We apply this model to the Lake Erie walleye (Sander vitreus) fishery, and by fully considering the uncertainty of the indicators, the risk of overfishing and the risk of the population being overfished can be explicitly estimated in the control rules. We suggest short and long-term approaches to incorporate uncertainty in the design of control rules. We also suggest that control rules for specific fisheries should be designed with explicit consideration of the uncertainty of the biological reference points, based on a risk level that the management agency and stakeholders agree upon.
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 | 0.024 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".