Using experiments and expert judgment to model catchability of Pacific rockfishes in trawl surveys, with application\nto bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) off British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The time series of abundance indices for many groundfishpopulations, as determined from trawl surveys, are often imprecise and short, causing stock assessment estimatesof abundance to be imprecise. To improve precision, prior probability distributions (priors) have been developedfor parameters in stock assessment models by using meta-analysis, expert judgment on catchability, and empirically based modeling. This article presents a synthetic approach for formulating priors for rockfish trawl survey catchability (qgross). A multivariate prior for qgross for different surveys is formulated by using 1) a correction factor for bias in estimating fish density between trawlable and untrawlable areas, 2) expert judgment on trawl net catchability, 3) observations from trawl survey experiments, and 4) data on the fraction of populationbiomass in each of the areas surveyed. The method is illustrated by using bocaccio (Sebastes paucipinis) in British Columbia. Results indicate that expert judgment can be updated markedly by observing the catch-rate ratio from different trawl gears in the same areas. The marginal priorsfor qgross are consistent with empirical estimates obtained by fitting a stock assessment model to the survey data under a noninformative prior for qgross. Despite high prior uncertainty (prior coefficients of variation ≥0.8) and high prior correlation between qgross, the prior for qgross still enhances the precision of key stock assessmentquantities.
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 | 0.048 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".