The use and performance of survey-based pre-recruit abundance indices for possible inclusion in stock assessments of coastal-dependent species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We reviewed the use of survey-based pre-recruit abundance indices in short-term recruitment forecasts for fish species relying on coastal habitats at the juvenile stage and that are assessed by ICES. We collated information from stock assessment reports and from a questionnaire filled out by the stock assessors. Among the 78 stocks with juvenile coastal dependence, 49 use short-term forecasts in stock assessment. Survey-based pre-recruit abundance indices were available for 35 of these stocks, but only 14 were used to forecast recruitment. The questionnaire indicated that the limited use of survey-based pre-recruit abundance indices was primarily due to sampling inefficiency, which may preclude reliable recruitment estimates. The sampling is inefficient because the juvenile coastal distribution is outside the geographical area covered by large-scale surveys or targeted coastal surveys are conducted on limited spatial and temporal scales. However, our analysis of the relationship between survey-based pre-recruit indices and assessment-generated recruitment indices revealed that survey-based pre-recruit abundance indices were sufficiently accurate to provide useful information for predicting future recruitment. We recommend expansion of the use of survey-based indices of pre-recruit abundance in stock assessment and recruitment forecasting, and consideration of how to include juveniles in ongoing and future surveys.
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 | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".