Simulating spatial dynamics to evaluate methods of deriving abundance indices for tropical tunas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative abundance indices derived from nominal catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data are a principle source of information for the majority of stock assessments. A particular problem with formulating such abundance indices for pelagic species such as tuna is the interpretation of CPUE data from fleets that have changed distribution over time. In this research, spatial population dynamics are simulated to test the historical pattern of fishing effort as a basis for making inferences about relative abundance. A number of age-structured, spatially disaggregated population dynamics models are described for both Atlantic yellowfin tuna ( Thunnus albacares ) and bigeye tuna ( Thunnus obesus ) to account for uncertainty in spatial distribution and movement. These models are used to evaluate the reliability of standardization methods and a commonly applied model selection criterion, Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). The simulations demonstrate the pitfalls of aggregating CPUE data over spatial areas and highlight the need for data imputation. Simulations support simpler models than those selected using AIC for extracting reliable indices of relative abundance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".