Assessment modelling approaches for stocks with spawning components, seasonal and spatial dynamics, and limited resources for data collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The true spatiotemporal structure of a fish population is often more complex than represented in assessments because movement between spawning components is disregarded and data at the necessary scale are unavailable. This can generate poor advice. We explore the impacts of modelling choices and their associated risks given limited data and lack of biological knowledge on spawning component structure and connectivity. Pseudo-data for an age structured fish population were simulated with two spawning components that experience various levels of connectivity and that might overlap during a certain period but segregate during reproduction. A variety of implicit spatiotemporal and simpler models were fitted to the pseudo-datasets, mimicking different situations of data availability. To reproduce the true stock characteristics, the spatiotemporal models required total catch data disaggregated by spawning component; however, catch-at-age was not as important nor were disaggregated biomass indices to reproduce true dynamics. Even with just 5% connectivity between spawning components, both the spatiotemporal models and simpler alternatives generally overestimated stock biomass. Although bias was smallest when considering one unit population, spawning components might still need to be considered for management and conservation. In such case, the spatiotemporal model was less influenced by ignored connectivity patterns compared to a model focussing on one spawning component only.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".