MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905389047 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11470

Identifiable state‐space models: A case study of the Bay of Fundy sea scallop fishery

2018· article· en· W2905389047 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Yihao Yin, William H. Aeberhard, Stephen J. Smith, Joanna Mills Flemming

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayFisheryScallopFrequentist inferenceBayesian inferenceInferenceComputer scienceState spaceBayesian probabilitySpace (punctuation)Fisheries managementMarine engineeringOperations researchOceanographyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsGeologyFishingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract State‐space models (SSMs) are now popular tools in fisheries science for providing management advice when faced with noisy survey and commercial fishery data. Such models are often fitted within a Bayesian framework requiring both the specification of prior distributions for model parameters and simulation‐based approaches for inference. Here we present a frequentist framework as a viable alternative and recommend using the Laplace approximation with automatic differentiation, as implemented in the R package Template Model Builder, for fast fitting and reliable inference. Additionally we highlight some identifiability issues associated with SSMs that fisheries scientists should be aware of and demonstrate how our modelling strategy surmounts these problems. Using the Bay of Fundy sea scallop fishery we show that our implementation yields more conservative advice than that of the reference model.The Canadian Journal of Statistics47: 27–45; 2019 © 2018 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207