To: Atlantic Menhaden Management Board From: Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup RE: Ecological Reference Points using Pikitch et al. (2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At its February meeting, the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board (Board) tasked the BERP WG with developing ecological reference points for Atlantic menhaden using Pikitch et al. (2012) as described in the ERP Report. As the Workgroup noted in the ERP Report, models or ERPs presented in the ERP report required further review by the BERP WG. To complete this task, the Workgroup reviewed the methodology by Pikitch et al. (2012) to determine which “information tier ” Atlantic menhaden fit into. Subsequently, the WG evaluated the applicability of the recommended management action associated with that information tier. After detailed discussions, the WG concluded: 1. The WG recognizes that the recommendations in Pikitch et al. (2012) are based on the idea that the variable stock dynamics of forage species, like Atlantic menhaden, may require additional managment precautions than other non-forage species. 2. The WG acknowledges that while the ERPs referenced in Pikitch et al. (2012) may be a bet-hedging strategy, it assumes that there must be some stock-recruitment relationship that has not yet been identified for Atlantic menhaden. 3. The WG decided that menhaden fall under the “intermediate information tier ” as defined
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.294 | 0.104 |
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".