In what direction should the fishing mortality target change when natural mortality increases within an assessment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the natural mortality rate (M) in a stock assessment is assumed to be constant. When M increases within an assessment, the question arises how to change the fishing mortality rate target (F Target ). Per recruit considerations lead to an increase in F Target , while limiting total mortality leads to a decrease in F Target . Application of either approach can result in nonsensical results. Short-term gains in yield associated with high F Target values should be considered in light of potential losses in future yield if the high total mortality rate leads to a decrease in recruitment. Examples using yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) are used to demonstrate that F Target can change when M increases within an assessment and to illustrate the consequences of different F Target values. When a change in M within an assessment is contemplated, first consider the amount and strength of empirical evidence to support the change. When the empirical evidence is not strong, we recommend using a constant M. If strong empirical evidence exists, we recommend estimating F Target for a range of stock–recruitment relationships and evaluating the trade-offs between risk of overfishing and forgone yield.
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 | 0.037 | 0.123 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".