A preliminary examination of differential survey trends in recent years between the Canadian Spring and EU-Spain surveys for 3NO cod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of the EU-Spain survey in Divs. 3NO are not used as input to the current ADAPT assessment model for 3NO cod but make an interesting comparison to the Canadian Spring survey since they occur at approximately the same time of year. The two surveys exhibit differences in both abundance and biomass trends in recent years, with the EU-Spain survey results indicating some relatively strong signs of stock growth since 2007 but the Canadian spring survey showing little to no sign of stock growth. Results did not change when analyses of the Canadian survey were restricted only to strata located all or partially within the NRA. An examination of distribution plots for the two surveys suggests that a lower density of fishing sets in the NRA by the Canadian Spring survey relative to the EU-Spain survey might be at least partially responsible for the differential trends between the two survey time series in recent years. However, because the EU-Spain survey covers only a small portion of the stock area, the observed trends for this survey can not be considered indicative of the entire stock. Differences in the length distribution of the catches were also evident in some years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".