Comparing predictions of fisheries bycatch using multiple spatiotemporal species distribution model frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatiotemporal predictions of bycatch (i.e., catch of nontargeted species) have shown promise as dynamic ocean management tools for reducing bycatch. However, which spatiotemporal model framework to use for generating these predictions is unclear. We evaluated a relatively new method, Gaussian Markov random fields (GMRFs), with two other frameworks, generalized additive models (GAMs) and random forests. We fit geostatistical delta-models to fisheries observer bycatch data for six species with a broad range of movement patterns (e.g., highly migratory sea turtles versus sedentary rockfish) and bycatch rates (percentage of observations with nonzero catch, 0.3%–96.2%). Random forests had better interpolation performance than the GMRF and GAM models for all six species, but random forests performance was more sensitive when predicting data at the edge of the fishery (i.e., spatial extrapolation). Using random forests to identify and remove the 5% highest bycatch risk fishing events reduced the bycatch-to-target species catch ratio by 34% on average. All models considerably reduced the bycatch-to-target ratio, demonstrating the clear potential of species distribution models to support spatial fishery management.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".