Improving estimates of population status and trend with superensemble models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fishery managers must often reconcile conflicting estimates of population status and trend. Superensemble models, commonly used in climate and weather forecasting, may provide an effective solution. This approach uses predictions from multiple models as covariates in an additional “superensemble” model fitted to known data. We evaluated the potential for ensemble averages and superensemble models (ensemble methods) to improve estimates of population status and trend for fisheries. We fit four widely applicable data‐limited models that estimate stock biomass relative to equilibrium biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B/BMSY). We combined these estimates of recent fishery status and trends in B/BMSY with four ensemble methods: an ensemble average and three superensembles (a linear model, a random forest and a boosted regression tree). We trained our superensembles on 5,760 simulated stocks and tested them with cross‐validation and against a global database of 249 stock assessments. Ensemble methods substantially improved estimates of population status and trend. Random forest and boosted regression trees performed the best at estimating population status: inaccuracy (median absolute proportional error) decreased from 0.42 – 0.56 to 0.32 – 0.33, rank‐order correlation between predicted and true status improved from 0.02 – 0.32 to 0.44 – 0.48 and bias (median proportional error) declined from −0.22 – 0.31 to −0.12 – 0.03. We found similar improvements when predicting trend and when applying the simulation‐trained superensembles to catch data for global fish stocks. Superensembles can optimally leverage multiple model predictions; however, they must be tested, formed from a diverse set of accurate models and built on a data set representative of the populations to which they are applied.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".