How Can Information Contribute to Management? Value of Information (VOI) Analysis on Indian Ocean Striped Marlin (Kajikia audax)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fisheries researchers have focused on the value of information (VOI) in fisheries management and trade-offs since scientists and managers realized that information from different resources has different contribution in the management process. We picked seven indicators, which are log-normal annual catch observation error (Cobs), annual catch observation bias (Cbias), log-normal annual index observation error (Iobs), maximum length observation bias (Linfbias), observed natural mortality rate bias (Mbias), observed von Bertalanffy growth parameter K bias (Kbias), and catch-at-age sample size (CAA_nsamp), and built operating models (OMs) to simulate fisheries dynamics, and then applied management strategy evaluation (MSE). Relative yield is chosen as the result to evaluate the contribution of the seven indicators. Within the parameter range, there was not much information value reflected from fisheries-dependent parameters including Cobs, Cbias, and Iobs. On the other hand, for fisheries-independent parameters such as Kbias, Mbias, and Linfbias, similar tendency of the information value was showed in the results, in which the relative yield goes down from the upper bound to the lower bound of the interval. CAA_nsamp had no impact on the yield after over 134 individuals. The VOI analysis contributes to the trade-offs in the decision-making process. Information with more value is more worthy to collect in case of waste of time and money so that we could make the best use of scientific effort. But we still need to improve the simulation process such as enhancing the diversity and predictability in an OM. More parameters are on the way to be tested in order to collect optimum information for management and decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".