Effects of process and observation errors on effective sample size of fishery and survey age and length composition using variance ratio and likelihood methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hulson, P-J. F., Hanselman, D. H., and Quinn, T. J. II. 2011. Effects of process and observation errors on effective sample size of fishery and survey age and length composition using variance ratio and likelihood methods. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1548–1557. Observations of age or length composition from fisheries or research surveys are modelled frequently with the multinomial distribution. Violations of multinomial assumptions in data collection usually cause overdispersion of observations and consequent underestimation of uncertainty. This has led to the adoption of an effective sample size less than the actual sample size to approximate the likelihood function for age or length composition better in, for example, fishery stock assessment models. The behaviour of effective sample size is examined under different scenarios for population age distribution and sampling design. Effective sample size was approximated with three approaches: (i) the ratio of multinomial to empirical variance; (ii) sampling estimation; and (iii) the Dirichlet likelihood. The most significant changes in effective sample size were attributable to process error involving aggregation of ages within schools. In terms of observation error, effective sample size can be increased by increasing the number of tows from which samples are obtained for age or length composition, then, because of the reduced uncertainty in effective sample size, the Dirichlet likelihood can be integrated into the objective function of fishery stock assessment models to estimate the effective sample size in future assessments.
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 | 0.163 | 0.426 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".