Detecting and correcting underreported catches in fish stock assessment: trial of a new method
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
Landings from fisheries are often underreported, that is, the true landings are greater than those reported. Despite this bias, reported landings are widely used in fish stock assessments, and this might lead to overoptimistic exploitation strategies. We construct a statistical stock assessment model that accounts for underreported landings using the theory of censoring with sequential population analysis (SPA). The new model is developed and implemented specifically for the cod stock ( Gadus morhua ) from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada). This stock is known to have unreported overfishing during 1985–1992. We show in simulations that for this stock, the new censored model can correctly detect the problematic landings. These corrections are nearly insensitive to subjective boundaries placed on real catches and robust to modifications imposed in the simulation of landings. However, when surveys are too noisy, the new SPA for censored catches can result in increased uncertainty in parameters used for management such as spawning stock biomass and age-structured stock size.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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