Evaluating the consequences of common assumptions in run reconstructions on Pacific salmon biological status assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on biological status is essential for designing, implementing, and evaluating management strategies and recovery plans for threatened or exploited species. However, the data required to quantify status are often limited, and it is important to understand how assessments of status may be biased by assumptions in data analysis. For Pacific salmon, biological status assessments based on spawner abundances and spawner–recruitment (SR) analyses often involve “run reconstructions” that impute missing spawner data, expand observed spawner abundance to account for unmonitored streams, assign catch to individual stocks, and quantify age-at-return. Using a stochastic simulation approach, we quantified how common assumptions in run reconstructions biased assessments of biological status based on spawner abundance. We found that status assessments were robust to most common assumptions in run reconstructions, even in the face of declining monitoring coverage, but that overestimating catch tended to increase rates of status misclassification. Our results lend confidence to biological status assessments based on spawner abundances and SR analyses, even in the face of incomplete data.
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 | 0.189 | 0.486 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".