An empirical review of ICES reference points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has provided scientific stock advice based on reference points to manage fisheries in the North Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas for decades. ICES advice integrates the precautionary approach with the objective of achieving maximum sustainable yield. Here, we examine ICES reference point evolution over the last 25 yr and provide a comprehensive empirical review of current ICES reference points for data-rich stocks (Category 1; 79 stocks). The consistency of reference point estimation with the ICES guidelines is evaluated. We demonstrate: (1) how the framework has evolved over time in an intergovernmental setting, (2) that multiple precautionary components and sources of stochasticity are included, (3) that the relationship and historical context of stock size and recruitment are crucial for non-proxy reference points, (4) that reference points are reviewed frequently, taking into account fluctuations and multiple sources of variability, (5) that there are occasional inconsistencies with the guidelines, and (6) that more comprehensive and clearer documentation is needed. Simplifying the stock-recruit typology and developing quantitative criteria would assist with this critically important classification. We recommend a well-documented, transparent, and reproducible framework, and periodic syntheses comparing applications across all stocks.
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 | 0.048 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".