MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2941667587 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0283

Optimal harvest responses to environmental forecasts depend on resource knowledge and how it can be used

2019· article· en· W2941667587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steve J. Miller, Andrew Rassweiler, Laura E. Dee, Kristin M. Kleisner, Tracey Mangin, Ricardo Oliveros‐Ramos, Jorge Tam, Francisco P. Chávez, Miguel Ñiquen, Sarah E. Lester, Merrick Burden, Steven D. Gaines, Christopher Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWalton Family FoundationEnvironmental Defense FundLeona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
KeywordsStock (firearms)FishingShock (circulatory)Fish stockNatural resource economicsEconomicsEnvironmental scienceEconometricsFisheryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing natural resources under large-scale environmental fluctuations like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is likely to become increasingly important under climate change. Forecasts of environmental conditions are improving, but the best response to an unfavorable forecast remains unclear; many practitioners advocate reducing harvest as a more precautionary approach, while prior economic theory favors increasing harvest. Using logistic and age-structured fisheries models, we show that informational constraints — uncertain stock estimates and restrictions on harvest policies — play a central role in choosing how to respond to a forecasted shock. With perfect knowledge and no policy constraints, risk-neutral managers should increase harvest when a negative shock is forecast. However, informational constraints may drive the optimal response to a forecast of a negative shock toward or away from precaution. Precautionary forecast responses arise when informational constraints make the harvest policy insufficiently sensitive to the true resource status. In contrast, uncertainty about the stock size can lead to more aggressive forecast responses when stock dynamics are nonlinear and not all fish are susceptible to fishing.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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