Addressing age measurement errors in fish growth estimation from length-stratified samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish growth models are crucial for fisheries stock assessments and are commonly estimated using fish length-at-age data. This data is widely collected using length-stratified age sampling (LSAS), a cost-effective two-phase response-selective sampling method. The data may contain age measurement errors (MEs). We propose a methodology that accounts for both LSAS and age MEs to accurately estimate fish growth. The proposed methods use empirical proportion likelihood methodology for LSAS and the structural errors in variables methodology for age MEs. We provide a measure of uncertainty for parameter estimates and standardized residuals for model validation. To model the age distribution, we employ a continuation ratio-logit model that is consistent with the random nature of the true age distribution. We also apply a discretization approach for age and length distributions, which significantly improves computational efficiency and is consistent with the discrete age and length data typically encountered in practice. Our simulation study shows that neglecting age MEs can lead to significant bias in growth estimation, even with small but non-negligible age MEs. However, our new approach performs well regardless of the magnitude of age MEs and accurately estimates SEs of parameter estimators. Real data analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed model validation device. Computer codes to implement the methodology are provided.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".