MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2526288956 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0177

Examining nonstationarity in the recruitment dynamics of fishes using Bayesian change point analysis

2016· article· en· W2526288956 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tommi Perälä, Douglas P. Swain, Anna Kuparinen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Bayesian probabilityEconometricsDemersal zoneFishingFish stockFisheryStatisticsEcologyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine ecosystems can undergo regime shifts, which result in nonstationarity in the dynamics of the fish populations inhabiting them. The assumption of time-invariant parameters in stock–recruitment models can lead to severe errors when forecasting renewal ability of stocks that experience shifts in their recruitment dynamics. We present a novel method for fitting stock–recruitment models using the Bayesian online change point detection algorithm, which is able to cope with sudden changes in the model parameters. We validate our method using simulations and apply it to empirical data of four demersal fishes in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. We show that all of the stocks have experienced shifts in their recruitment dynamics that cannot be captured by a model that assumes time-invariant parameters. The detected shifts in the recruitment dynamics result in clearly different parameter distributions and recruitment predictions between the regimes. This study illustrates how stock–recruitment relationships can experience shifts, which, if not accounted for, can lead to false predictions about a stock’s recovery ability and resilience to fishing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→