Assessing the sensitivity of data-limited methods (DLMs) to the estimation of life-history parameters from length–frequency data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-limited methods (DLMs) in stock assessment may provide potential critical information for data-limited stock management. However, the sensitivity of those methods to life-history parameters is largely unknown, resulting in extra uncertainty and consequent risks. In the present study, we designed six parallel workflows (WFs) to incorporate classic and state-of-the-art methods of estimating life-history parameters and examined their influences on the assessment of small yellow croaker (Larimichthys polyactis) in Haizhou Bay, China. The sensitivity was evaluated with three objectives: (i) the evaluation of stock status with the spawning potential ratio following different assumptions; (ii) the length-based harvest control rules derived from three management procedures; and (iii) the management performance of these harvest control rules with simulation of management strategy evaluation. The results showed considerable sensitivity regarding the three objectives to the estimations with different WFs, indicating the previous practice of credulously accepting empirical values and indiscriminately selecting references are inadvisable. We also identified the most appropriate WFs used for different purposes with limited data, aiming to provide more reliable inputs for effective fisheries management.
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 | 0.032 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".