Does incorporating gear selectivity during macroscale investigations of fish growth reduce size-selective sampling bias in parameter estimates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of fish growth, the spatial variability in individual growth, and the potential drivers of such variability is a fundamental component of many ecological investigations. However, sampling gears are always size-selective, and this selectivity can result in biased parameter estimates that can lead to, for example, biased stock assessments that use growth estimates. Using seven flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) populations from across the USA as an example, we investigated to what degree the incorporation of gear selectivity in growth models reduces size-selective bias in the estimation of growth parameters during macroscale investigations of fish growth. We developed a series of simulation scenarios by combining different sampling methods to obtain fish samples and different gear selectivity assumptions to estimate parameters. Results showed that the efficacy of incorporating gear selectivity in growth models to reduce size-selective sampling bias during macroscale investigations depends on multiple factors, including (i) the size distribution of small and large fish in the sample (which is a function of sampling methods), and (ii) consistency of sampling methods across populations. Incorporation of gear selectivity may reduce bias when data are lacking for large fish and when sampling methods are inconsistent across populations. Demographics of the sampled populations and the growth parameter of interest can also affect the utility of directly incorporating gear selectivity into growth models. Because multiple factors can influence the efficacy of incorporating gear selectivity into growth models, the decision to do so likely needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. This study extends the existing gear selectivity research by focusing on macroscale fish growth investigations across multiple populations and provides guidance on how to handle gear selectivity assumptions during such investigations.
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 | 0.047 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".