Data-rich but model-resistant: an evaluation of data-limited methods to manage fisheries with failed age-based stock assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-based stock assessments are sometimes rejected by review panels due to large retrospective patterns. When this occurs, data-limited approaches are often used to set catch advice, under the assumption that these simpler methods will not be impacted by the problems causing retrospective patterns in the age-based assessment. This assumption has never been formally evaluated. Closed-loop simulations were conducted where a known source of error caused a retrospective pattern in an age-based assessment. Twelve data-limited methods, an ensemble of a subset of these methods, and a statistical catch-at-age model with retrospective adjustment were all evaluated to examine their ability to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Overall, none of the methods evaluated performed best across the scenarios. A number of methods performed consistently poorly, resulting in frequent and intense overfishing and low stock sizes. The retrospective adjusted statistical catch-at-age assessment performed better than a number of the alternatives explored. Thus, using a data-limited approach to set catch advice will not necessarily result in better performance than relying on the age-based assessment with a retrospective adjustment.
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 | 0.026 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".