Evaluation of alternative modelling approaches to account for spatial effects due to age-based movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial patterns due to age-specific movement have been a source of unmodelled process error. Modeling movement in spatially explicit stock assessments is feasible, but hampered by a paucity of data from appropriate tagging studies. This study uses simulation analyses to evaluate alternative model structures that either explicitly or implicitly account for the process of time-varying age-based movement in a population dynamics model. We simulated synthetic populations using a two-area stochastic population dynamics operating model. Simulated data were fit in seven different estimation models. Only the model that includes the correct spatial dynamic results in unbiased and precise estimates of derived and management quantities. In a single-area assessment model, using the fleets-as-area (FAA) approach may be the second best option to estimate both length-based and time-varying age-based selectivity to implicitly account for the contact selectivity and annual availability. An FAA approach adds additional observation error performed nearly as well. Future research could evaluate which stock assessment method is robust to uncertainty in movement and is more appropriate for achieving intended management objectives.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".