Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Flatfish Species and Anglerfish (WKFLAT), 1–8 March 2012, Bilbao, Spain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WKFLAT 2012 met from 1st to 8th March 2010 at AZTI Derio (Bilbao) Spain. The meeting was chaired by Joanne Morgan (Canada) and ICES co-ordinator was Rob Scott (UK). Rick Methot (USA) and Paul Nitschke (USA) participated in the meeting as invited external experts. A total of 25 participants from nine countries were in at-tendance. Stakeholder representatives were in attendance for part of the meeting.\nThe main goals and objectives of the meeting were to compile and evaluate data sources for stock assessment, investigate assessment models suitable to provide in-formation on stocks status and to update the relevant stock annexes of seven stocks as necessary. These included a number of anglerfish stocks (Anglerfish (Lophius piscato-rius) (Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIabd), Anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) (Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIabd), Anglerfish (Divisions IIa and IIIa, Subarea IV and Subarea VI), Angler-fish (L. piscatorius) (Divisions VIIIc and IXa), Anglerfish (L. budegassa) (Divisions VIIIc and IXa)), Sole in Division VIIe and Megrim in Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIabd. For each stock the preferred stock assessment method was determined and the stock an-nexes updated with the agreed procedures for generating and collating the input data to the stock assessment and the methods for estimating and forecasting stock status. In addition issues related to ageing and stock structure of anglerfish were discussed.\nPart of the problem with producing acceptable assessment models for anglerfish was data quality and a lack of knowledge of some of the basic biological processes for these species. There is a lot of uncertainty about maturity, sex ratio, growth, and length frequencies of the catch and there needs to be an improvement in these data.\nThe main results of the meeting stock were:\nUse of ageing in anglerfish assessments: The use of illicia based ageing was not war-ranted for either species. For Lophius piscatorius the studies of growth of Landa et al. (2012) should be used as the basis for length based assessments. For anglerfish in Divisions IIa and IIIa, Subarea IV and Subarea VI, ageing based on otoliths exists and age based assessments could be considered for this stock if the internal consistency of the age composition of the data were examined in more detail and sensitivity to growth assumptions considered. Further growth and (ageing) age validation studies taking sex into account are required.\nAnglerfish stock structure: There is no clear biological evidence to support the man-agement and assessment units as they are now. Tagging experiments and other stock structure studies are encouraged to determine if the migratory rate between areas is low enough not to impair the assessment models that consider the current stocks as isolated populations with little movement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.013 |
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".