SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR STOCK ASSESSMENT AND METHODOLOGY REVIEW PANELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) addressed two issues under this agenda item: 1) it identified a list of potential methods to be reviewed at the methodology reviews scheduled for 2011, and 2) it provided a final review of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the coastal pelagic species (CPS) stock assessments and methodology reviews. Potential methods for review during 2011 Three proposals were presented to the SSC for consideration for methodology review during 2011: 1) the use of satellite imagery during aerial photographic surveys, 2) the use of acoustic and (associated trawl) surveys for abundance estimation, and 3) calibration of aerial photographic surveys using lidar and acoustics. A trawl survey for Pacific sardine in Canadian waters had originally been mentioned as potentially being reviewed for use in the September 2011 assessment. However, no proposal related to this survey was presented to the SSC. The SSC considered what information would be available for a Panel to review, and how the methodology could be used in stock assessments and when specifying overfishing limits. (1) Methodology Panel 1 (early 2011) The SSC recommends that this Panel focus on reviewing the coastwide acoustic (and associated trawl) surveys conducted by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in 2006, 2008, and 2010. These surveys have the potential to provide estimates of abundance for Pacific sardine, jack mackerel, Northern anchovy, and Pacific mackerel. This Panel should also allocate time to provide recommendations for how a pilot study related to the use of satellite imagery could be conducted. The SSC considers the use of satellite imagery as being sufficiently promising that time spent on this topic would be beneficial. However, this methodology is not currently sufficiently well developed that results could be included in the September 2011 assessment of Pacific sardine. Experts in satellite imagery and analysis would be members of the
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 | 0.450 | 0.622 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.090 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".