MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194453017 · doi:10.3390/su13169124

Developing an Ensembled Machine Learning Prediction Model for Marine Fish and Aquaculture Production

2021· article· en· W3194453017 on OpenAlexaff
Labonnah Farzana Rahman, Mohammad Marufuzzaman, Lubna Alam, Md. Azizul Bari, U. Rashid Sumaila, Lariyah Mohd Sidek

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitut Alam Sekitar dan Pembangunan, Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaUniversiti Tenaga NasionalUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaMinistry of Higher Education, MalaysiaTenaga Nasional Berhad
KeywordsAquacultureProduction (economics)Gradient boostingBrackish waterRandom forestFisheryFishingPredictive powerMachine learningLinear regressionArtificial neural networkEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceEcologyBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fishing industry is identified as a strategic sector to raise domestic protein production and supply in Malaysia. Global changes in climatic variables have impacted and continue to impact marine fish and aquaculture production, where machine learning (ML) methods are yet to be extensively used to study aquatic systems in Malaysia. ML-based algorithms could be paired with feature importance, i.e., (features that have the most predictive power) to achieve better prediction accuracy and can provide new insights on fish production. This research aims to develop an ML-based prediction of marine fish and aquaculture production. Based on the feature importance scores, we select the group of climatic variables for three different ML models: linear, gradient boosting, and random forest regression. The past 20 years (2000–2019) of climatic variables and fish production data were used to train and test the ML models. Finally, an ensemble approach named voting regression combines those three ML models. Performance matrices are generated and the results showed that the ensembled ML model obtains R2 values of 0.75, 0.81, and 0.55 for marine water, freshwater, and brackish water, respectively, which outperforms the single ML model in predicting all three types of fish production (in tons) in Malaysia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207