Harvest models and stock co‐occurrence: probabilistic methods for estimating bycatch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A primary goal of ecosystem‐based fishery management is to reduce non‐target stock impacts, such as incidental harvest, during targeted fisheries. Quantifying incidental harvest has generally incorporated fishery‐dependent catch data, yet such data may be biased by gear non‐retention, observation difficulties, and non‐random harvest patterns that collectively lead to an impartial understanding of non‐target stock capture. To account for such issues and explicitly recognize the combined influence of ecological and harvest factors contributing to incidental capture within targeted fisheries, we demonstrate a probabilistic modelling framework that incorporates: (i) background rates of target and non‐target stock co‐occurrence as the primary ecological basis for incidental harvest; (ii) the probability of harvesting at localities exhibiting co‐occurrences; (iii) the probability of selecting for non‐target species with fishery gear; and, (iv) as a function of harvest effort, the overall probability of incidental capture for any non‐target stock contained in the species pool available for harvest. To illustrate application of the framework, simulation models were based on fishery‐independent data from a freshwater fishery in Ontario, Canada. Harvest simulations of empirical stock data indicated that greatest species‐specific capture values were over 4000 times more likely than for species with lowest values, indicating highly variable capture probabilities because of the combined influence of stock heterogeneity and harvest dynamics. Estimated bycatch–effort relationships will allow forecasting incidental harvest on the basis of effort to evaluate future shifts in fishing activity against specific ecosystem‐based fishery management objectives, such as reducing the overall probability of bycatch while maintaining target landings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".