In-Season Forecasting of Coho Salmon Marine Survival via Coded Wire Tag Recoveries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Calculation of in-season marine survival rate forecasts for coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch can provide valuable support for in-season harvest management decisions because annual variability in marine survival accounts for a large proportion of total recruitment variability. We present a new forecasting model that utilizes coded wire tag (CWT) recovery information from early occurring fisheries to provide in-season marine survival forecasts that are timely enough to inform harvest management decisions for subsequent fisheries. We evaluate performance of the CWT model by using retrospective analyses on four coho salmon indicator stocks from northern British Columbia, Canada. For each stock, model selection analysis was used to identify which of three time-varying fishery catchability models used within the CWT model maximized forecasting performance. A Bayesian approach to parameter estimation was then applied to the best CWT model to generate probabilistic forecasts of marine survival rate for six consecutive weeks of in-season forecasting in each year. Although forecasted posterior distributions were wide in some cases, the posterior mode tracked marine survival relatively well in comparison with postseason marine survival estimates based on recoveries from all fisheries and the spawning grounds. Average percent forecast biases based on posterior modes were −1, −4, 19, and 57% for the four indicator stocks in the final week of forecasting. The lower tails of the posterior distributions were well defined, which is most relevant to identifying years of conservation concern due to extremely low marine survival. We conclude that timely in-season recovery and analysis of CWT information could improve the level of information available to inform in-season harvest management decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".