Indirect estimation of contact selectivity for gill nets using hierarchical models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indirect estimation of selectivities for gill nets is frequently conducted to evaluate size-related differences in vulnerability, with catches typically pooled across multiple net sets when estimating. An alternative to pooling catches would be to use hierarchical modeling to estimate selectivities, which would allow for variability in selectivity among sets to be assessed and to account for spatial or temporal autocorrelation across sets. We estimated selectivities for gill nets using several hierarchical model formulations using walleye Sander vitreus catch data from two experimental gillnet configurations in Lake Erie. Hierarchical selectivity curves were more supported from an information-theoretic perspective than nonhierarchical versions, although convergence and model complexity issues arose for some models incorporating spatial autocorrelation. Hierarchical bi-normal selectivity curves, where set-specific parameter deviations were modeled through univariate normal distributions were most supported by available data for both configurations. Given the availability of flexible software for fitting and diagnosing hierarchical models, we recommend that hierarchical modeling of contact selectivity be considered to improve understanding of set-specific variability in selectivities with multiple deployments rather than automatically pooling catch data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it