Understanding and managing fish populations: keeping the toolbox fit for purpose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild fish populations are currently experiencing unprecedented pressures, which are projected to intensify in the coming decades. Developing a thorough understanding of the influences of both biotic and abiotic factors on fish populations is a salient issue in contemporary fish conservation and management. During the 50th Anniversary Symposium of The Fisheries Society of the British Isles at the University of Exeter, UK, in July 2017, scientists from diverse research backgrounds gathered to discuss key topics under the broad umbrella of 'Understanding Fish Populations'. Below, the output of one such discussion group is detailed, focusing on tools used to investigate natural fish populations. Five main groups of approaches were identified: tagging and telemetry; molecular tools; survey tools; statistical and modelling tools; tissue analyses. The appraisal covered current challenges and potential solutions for each of these topics. In addition, three key themes were identified as applicable across all tool-based applications. These included data management, public engagement, and fisheries policy and governance. The continued innovation of tools and capacity to integrate interdisciplinary approaches into the future assessment and management of fish populations is highlighted as an important focus for the next 50 years of fisheries research.
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 | 0.058 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".