Sequential analysis and design of fixed-precision sampling of Lake Kariba fishes using Taylor’s power law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taylor’s power law (TPL), which states that the variance of abundance is a power function of mean abundance, has been used to design sampling of agricultural pests and fish species. We show that TPL holds for means and variances of abundance of accumulated fish samples in the fished and unfished areas separately of Lake Kariba (between Zambia and Zimbabwe), measuring abundance indices by number and weight separately. We use TPL parameters estimated from sequentially accumulated samples to update a stopping line of fixed precision 0.1 after each new sample from a sampling day. In these Lake Kariba data, depending on the sampling area and abundance measure, our updated stopping-line method requires 21% to 41% of the number of sampling days and 19% to 40% of the number of samples that are planned a priori and performed under systematic sampling. Our novel method yields mean abundance estimates similar to those from systematic sampling and provides a conservative approach to reaching a fixed sampling precision level with reduced sampling labor and time. Using mixed-effect modeling for cumulative means and variances with either number or weight from both fished and unfished areas, we find that fishing increases the slope of TPL. This study provides the conceptual framework and an empirical case study for implementing a sequential sampling method for fish assemblages of an inland lake. The possible limitations and applications of our method for sampling in other environments are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".