Predicting fish weight using photographic image analysis: a case study of broad whitefish in the lower Mackenzie River watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many small-scale fisheries are remote in nature, making data collection logistically difficult. Thus, there is a need for accessible solutions that address the data gaps present in these fisheries. One possible solution is to incorporate photography into community- or harvest-based monitoring frameworks and employ these images to estimate biological data. Here, we test this approach using łuk dagaii, or broad whitefish, Coregonus nasus (Pallus, 1776) in the Gwich'in Settlement Area, a remote region in the Mackenzie River system in Canada's Northwest Territories. We used photographs taken by Gwich'in collaborators using a simple, standardized set-up to ask the question: how accurately can weight be estimated from a photo? Using random forest models based on morphometric photograph measurements as well as season and location of harvest, we predicted broad whitefish weight to within 13% of true weight (257 g, for fish weighing an average of 2036 g). The model predictions were well distributed in their residuals for most fish, though we discuss biases at low and high weights. Image analysis is a simple, low cost, and accessible method that may contribute to ongoing, community/harvest-based fishery data collection where fish length (measured) and weight (predicted) can be tracked through time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".