Modernising fish and shark growth curves with Bayesian length-at-age models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth modelling is a fundamental component of fisheries assessments but is often hindered by poor quality data from biased sampling. Several methods have attempted to account for sample bias in growth analyses. However, in many cases this bias is not overcome, especially when large individuals are under-sampled. In growth models, two key parameters have a direct biological interpretation: L0, which should correspond to length-at-birth and L∞, which should approximate the average length of full-grown individuals. Here, we present an approach of fitting Bayesian growth models using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), with informative priors on these parameters to improve the biological plausibility of growth estimates. A generalised framework is provided in an R package 'BayesGrowth', which removes the hurdle of programming an MCMC model for new users. Four case studies representing different sampling scenarios as well as three simulations with different selectivity functions were used to compare this Bayesian framework to standard frequentist growth models. The Bayesian models either outperformed or matched the results of frequentist growth models in all examples, demonstrating the broad benefits offered by this approach. This study highlights the impact that Bayesian models could provide in age and growth studies if applied more routinely rather than being limited to only complex or sophisticated applications.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".