A Comparison of Two Stratification Schemes Used in Sampling Canadian Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sampling is a key element in the assessment of any fish stock. It is often one of the most expensive activities of the management process; thus, improved efficiency can result in significant cost savings. In most cases a two-phase sampling strategy is employed. Two commonly used versions of such stratified random schemes were simulated using a test population based on Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. A 1 otolith per 1 cm length frequency currently used for many flatfish and some smaller gadoids and a 3 otolith per 3 cm length frequency currently used for many of the larger gadoids. No difference was detected in the age composition or mean length at age for either scheme; however, 10 percent fewer otoliths were collected in 1 for 1 sampling than 3 for 3. There was an improvement of between 30 and 60 percent in the coefficient of variation of the estimated catch numbers at age using the 1 for 1 compared with the 3 for 3 stratified sampling. For these reasons and other operational considerations, the 1 for 1 stratified random design of sampling appears to be superior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".