Quantifying uncertainty in the wild‐caught fisheries goal of the Ocean Health Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sustainability indices are proliferating, both to help synthesize scientific understanding and inform policy. However, it remains poorly understood how such indices are affected by underlying assumptions of the data and modelling approaches used to compute indicator values. Here, we focus on one such indicator, the fisheries goal within the Ocean Health Index (OHI), which evaluates the sustainable provision of food from wild fisheries. We quantify uncertainty in the fisheries goal status arising from the (a) approach for estimating missing data (i.e., fish stocks with no status) and (b) reliance on a data‐limited method (catch‐MSY) to estimate stock status (i.e., B/BMSY). We also compare several other models to estimate B/BMSY, including an ensemble approach, to determine whether alternative models might reduce uncertainty and bias. We find that the current OHI fisheries goal model results in overly optimistic fisheries goal statuses. Uncertainty and bias can be reduced by (a) using a mean (vs. median) gap‐filling approach to estimate missing stock scores and (b) estimating fisheries status using the central tendency from a simulated distribution of status scores generated by a bootstrap approach that incorporates error in B/BMSY. This multitiered approach to measure and describe uncertainty improves the transparency and interpretation of the indicator and allows us to better understand uncertainty around our OHI fisheries model and outputs for country‐level interpretation and use.
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 | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".