A new approach for estimating stock status from length frequency data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents a new method (LBB) for the analysis of length frequency data from commercial catches. LBB works for species that grow throughout their lives, such as most commercially-important fish and invertebrates, and requires no input in addition to length frequency data. It estimates asymptotic length, length at first capture, relative natural mortality, and relative fishing mortality. Standard fisheries equations can then be used to approximate current exploited biomass relative to unexploited biomass. In addition, these parameters allow the estimation of length at first capture that would maximize catch and biomass for a given fishing effort, and estimation of a proxy for the relative biomass capable of producing maximum sustainable yields. Relative biomass estimates of LBB were not significantly different from the “true” values in simulated data and were similar to independent estimates from full stock assessments. LBB also presents a new indicator for assessing whether an observed size structure is indicative of a healthy stock. LBB results will obviously be misleading if the length frequency data do not represent the size composition of the exploited size range of the stock or if length frequencies resulting from the interplay of growth and mortality are masked by strong recruitment pulses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".