MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402576193 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsae110

A roadmap for generating annual bycatch estimates from sparse at-sea observer data

2024· article· en· W4402576193 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yihao Yin, Heather D. Bowlby, Hugues P. Benoît

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortFisheries and Oceans CanadaBedford Institute of Oceanography
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsBycatchObserver (physics)Environmental scienceComputer scienceFisheryBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To support ecosystem-based fisheries management, monitoring data from at-sea observer (ASO) programs should be leveraged to understand the impact of fisheries on discarded species (bycatch). Available techniques to estimate fishery-scale quantities from observations range from simple mean estimators to more complex spatiotemporal models, each making assumptions with differing degrees of support. However, the resulting implementation and analytical trade-offs are rarely discussed when applying these techniques in practice. Using blue shark (Prionace glauca) bycatch in the Canadian pelagic longline fishery as a case study, we evaluated the performance of seven contrasting approaches to estimating total annual discard amounts and assessed their trade-offs in application. Results demonstrated that simple approaches such as mean estimator and nearest neighbors are feasible to implement and can be as efficient for prediction as complex models such as random forest and mixed-effects models. The traditionally used catch-ratio estimator consistently underperformed among all tested models, likely due to misspecified correlative relationships between target and bycatch species. Overall, efforts in model-based approaches were rewarded with very small gains in predictive ability, suggesting that such models relying on environmental, biological, spatial, and/or temporal patterns to improve prediction of bycatch may lack sufficient foundation in data-limited contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207