Simulation-based management strategy evaluation: ignorance disguised as mathematics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rochet, M-J. and Rice, J. C. 2009. Simulation-based management strategy evaluation: ignorance disguised as mathematics? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 754–762. Simulation-based management strategy evaluations are increasingly developed and used for science advice in support of fisheries management, along with risk evaluation and decision analysis. These methods tackle the problem of uncertainty in fisheries systems and data by modelling uncertainty in two ways. For quantities that are difficult to measure accurately or are inherently variable, variables are replaced by probability distributions, and system dynamics are simulated by Monte Carlo simulations, drawing numbers from these distributions. For processes that are not fully understood, arrays of model formulations that might underlie the observed patterns are developed, each is assumed successively, and the results of the corresponding arrays of model results are then combined. We argue that these approaches have several paradoxical features. Stochastic modelling of uncertainty is paradoxical, because it implies knowing more than deterministic approaches: to know the distribution of a quantity requires more information than only estimating its expected value. To combine the results of Monte Carlo simulations with different model formulations may be paradoxical if outcomes of concern are unlikely under some formulations but very likely under others, whereas the reported uncertainty from combined results may produce a risk level that does not occur under any plausible assumed formulation. Moreover, risk estimates of the probability of undesirable outcomes are often statements about likelihood of events that were seldom observed and lie in the tails of the simulated distributions, where the results of Monte Carlo simulation are the least reliable. These potential paradoxes lead us to suggest that greater attention be given to alternative methods to evaluate risks or management strategies, such as qualitative methods and empirical post hoc analyses.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".