Misspecification in stock assessments: Common uncertainties and asymmetric risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Common uncertainties in stock assessment relate to parameters or assumptions that strongly determine both the estimates of quantities of management interest (e.g. stock depletion) and related reference points (e.g. biomass at maximum sustainable yield). The risks associated with these uncertainties are often presented to managers in the form of decision tables. However, a formal evaluation of the risks from misspecifying an assessment model over time‐horizons spanning multiple assessment cycles requires closed‐loop simulation. There were two aims of this study: (a) develop an approach to identify and evaluate asymmetries in risk to yields and spawning biomass due to biases in key parameters and data sources in a stock assessment model, (b) quantify the relative importance of correctly specifying the various assessment attributes. A computationally efficient stock reduction analysis was evaluated using closed‐loop simulation to identify risks associated with a stock assessment with persistent positive and negative biases in the key parameters and inaccurate assumptions regarding data sources. Six types of assessment misspecification were examined, namely the assumed natural mortality rate, the assumed recruitment compensation ratio, the assumed age of maturity, a hyper‐stable or hyper‐deplete index of abundance, over‐ or under‐reporting of historical catch, and misspecification of the assumed shape of the selectivity curve. This study reveals large asymmetries in risk associated with common uncertainties in stock assessment processes. We highlight the value of reproducible and computationally efficient stock assessment models that can be investigated by closed‐loop simulation before being used for fisheries 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".