Comparing the performance of three data-weighting methods when allowing for time-varying selectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to properly weight composition data is an important ongoing research topic for fisheries stock assessments, and multiple methods for weighting composition data have been developed. Although several studies indicated that properly accounting for time-varying selectivity can reduce estimation biases in population biomass and management-related quantities, no study to date has compared the performance of widely used data-weighting methods when allowing for time-varying selectivity. Here, we conducted four simulation experiments on this topic, aiming to provide guidance on weighting age-composition data given time-varying selectivity. The first simulation experiment showed that over-weighting should be avoided in general and even when estimating time-varying selectivity. The second simulation experiment compared three data-weighting methods (McAllister–Ianelli, Francis, and Dirichlet-multinomial), within which the Dirichlet-multinomial method outperformed the other two methods when selectivity is time-varying. The third and fourth simulation experiments further showed that given time-varying selectivity, the Dirichlet-multinomial method still performed well when age-composition data were over-dispersed and when the level of selectivity variation needed to be simultaneously estimated. Our simulation results support using the Dirichlet-multinomial method when estimating time-varying fishery selectivity. Also, the simulations suggest that improving stock assessments by accounting for time-varying selectivity requires simultaneously addressing data weighting and time-varying selectivity.
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 | 0.027 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".