Assessing the assumptions of classification agreement, accuracy, and predictable healing time of sea lamprey wounds on lake trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea lamprey control in the Laurentian Great Lakes relies on records of sea lamprey wounds on lake trout to assess whether control efforts are supporting fisheries management targets. Wounding records have been maintained for 70 years under the assumption that they are a reliable and accurate reflection of sea lamprey damage inflicted on fish populations. However, two key assumptions underpinning the use of these data need thorough evaluation: sea lamprey wounds follow a predictable healing progression, and individuals classify wounds accurately and reliably. To assess these assumptions, we conducted a workshop where experienced professionals examined lake trout with known sea lamprey wounds. For most lake trout, pictures were taken at regular intervals during the healing process. Our evaluation of wound pictures found high variability in healing times and wound progressions that did not conform to the currently used classification system. Participants’ wound classification agreement and accuracy were low and misclassification rates were high for most wound types. Training provided during the workshops did not markedly improve these metrics. We assessed wound classification accuracy for the first time and found assumptions of high accuracy and agreement are not met. We recommend misclassification rates be incorporated into models using wound data, sensitivity analyses be conducted to assess the potential impact of wound misclassification on estimates of key metrics (such as sea lamprey-induced mortality for lake trout), and alternative biomarkers be developed to quantify wound status with greater accuracy and precision.
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 | 0.052 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".