MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2899691370 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0130

Valuing changes in frequency of fish stock assessments

2018· article· en· W2899691370 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara Hutniczak, Douglas W. Lipton, John Wiedenmann, Michael J. Wilberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingFisheryFlounderGroundfishStock (firearms)Fish stockEscapementFisheries managementStock assessmentDiscountingRecreational fishingParalichthysEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>BusinessGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Updating stock assessments frequently and ensuring that the most recent fishery-dependent and -independent data are included is a costly endeavor. We use a management strategy evaluation for the mid-Atlantic summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) fishery to determine the economic returns to increasing update frequencies and decreasing the data management lag. We simulate the annual acceptable biological catch for the period 2015–2040 under a range of update frequencies and data lags. We calculate present value net economic benefits for the commercial and recreational fisheries for each scenario. Discounting, the timing of harvest quotas, species-specific price flexibilities, and fishing cost response to biomass and quota differences suggest that the benefits gained from frequent updating and reduction in data lags will vary by fishery. For summer flounder, we find the cost of more frequent updating (1 versus 5 years) and reducing the data management lag (1 versus 2 years) are more than compensated for by societal benefits generated by the fishery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→