Taylor’s power law and fixed-precision sampling: application to abundance of fish sampled by gillnets in an African lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taylor’s power law (TPL) describes the variance of population abundance as a power-law function of the mean abundance for a single or a group of species. Using consistently sampled long-term (1958–2001) multimesh capture data of Lake Kariba in Africa, we showed that TPL robustly described the relationship between the temporal mean and the temporal variance of the captured fish assemblage abundance (regardless of species), separately when abundance was measured by numbers of individuals and by aggregate weight. The strong correlation between the mean of abundance and the variance of abundance was not altered after adding other abiotic or biotic variables into the TPL model. We analytically connected the parameters of TPL when abundance was measured separately by the aggregate weight and by the aggregate number, using a weight–number scaling relationship. We utilized TPL to find the number of samples required for fixed-precision sampling and compared the number of samples when sampling was performed with a single gillnet mesh size and with multiple mesh sizes. These results facilitate optimizing the sampling design to estimate fish assemblage abundance with specified precision, as needed in stock management and conservation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".