Lessons learned from data-limited evaluations of data-rich reef fish species in the Gulf of Mexico: implications for providing fisheries management advice for data-poor stocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specifying annual catch limits for artisanal fisheries, low economic value stocks, or bycatch species is problematic due to data limitations. Many empirical management procedures (MPs) have been developed that provide catch advice based on achieving a stable catch or a historical target (i.e., instead of maximum sustainable yield). However, a thorough comparison of derived yield streams between empirical MPs and stock assessment models has not been explored. We first evaluate trade-offs in conservation and yield metrics for data-limited approaches through management strategy evaluation (MSE) of seven data-rich reef fish species in the Gulf of Mexico. We then apply data-limited approaches for each species and compare how catch advice differs from current age-based assessment models. MSEs identified empirical MPs (e.g., using relative abundance) as a compromise between data requirements and the ability to consistently achieve management objectives (e.g., prevent overfishing). Catch advice differed greatly among data-limited approaches and current assessments, likely due to data inputs and assumptions. Adaptive MPs become clearly viable options that can achieve management objectives while incorporating auxiliary data beyond catch-only approaches.
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 | 0.062 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".