A framework to incorporate environmental effects into stock assessments informed by fishery-independent surveys: a case study with American lobster (<i>Homarus americanus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock assessments for a majority of the world’s fisheries often do not explicitly consider the effects of environmental conditions on target species, which can raise model uncertainty and potentially reduce forecasting quality. Model-based abundance indices were developed using a delta generalized linear mixed model that incorporates environmental variability for use in stock assessment to understand how the incorporation of environmental variability impacts our understanding of population dynamics. For this study, multiple model-based abundance indices were developed to test the incorporation of environmental covariates in a length-structured assessment of the American lobster (Homarus americanus) stock in the Gulf of Maine – Georges Bank on the possible improvement of stock assessment quality. Comparisons reveal that modelled indices with environmental covariates appear to be more precise than traditional indices, but model performance metrics and hindcasted fishery statuses revealed that these improvements to indices may not necessarily mean an improved assessment. Model-based abundance indices are not intrinsically better than design-based indices and should be tested for each species individually.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".