MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133269056

Case Study Applications of LRP Estimation Methods to Pacific Salmon Stock Management Units

2023· other· en· W7133269056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kendra R. Holt, Carrie A. Holt, Luke Warkentin, Catarina Wor, Brooke Davis, Michael Arbeider, Jessy K. Bokvist, Sabrina Crowley, Sue Grant, Wilf Luedke, Diana McHugh, Candace M. Picco, Pieter Van Will

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Substance Abuse Prevention
KeywordsStock (firearms)Aggregate (composite)Fish stockPopulationAbundance estimationAbundance (ecology)EstimationStock assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The revised Fisheries Act requires that Limit Reference Points (LRPs) be identified for all major fish stocks. For Pacific salmon, major fish stocks are represented by stock management units (SMUs). An SMU is composed of one or more salmon conservation units (CUs), which are the assessment units under the Wild Salmon Policy, WSP. We introduce methods to estimate LRPs at the SMU level that integrate statuses derived under the WSP at the CU level. We demonstrate and evaluate the LRPs for three case study SMUs: Interior Fraser Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) Chinook (O. tshawytscha), and Inside South Coast Chum (O. keta) - excluding Fraser River. Methods are divided into two categories: CU status-based LRPs and aggregate abundance LRPs. CU status-based LRPs are recommended as the default method, and are based on the proportion of CUs above levels associated with increased risk of extinction (above ‘Red’ status) under the WSP. Aggregate abundance methods may be used supplementally to meet specific fisheries management requirements. Aggregate abundance LRPs are subdivided into logistic regression LRPs and projection LRPs. Both types of aggregate abundance LRPs are defined at the SMU-level abundances associated with a desired probability of all component CUs being above Red status, but they differ in that logistic regression LRPs are determined directly from historical data while projection LRPs are determined from projections of CU-level population dynamics. We discuss suitability and requirements for the application of the various LRP estimation methods, drawing from the range of data and information availability among the case studies. In general, the application of aggregate abundance LRPs may be limited to SMUs where the CU-level populations covary, as demonstrated for the Interior Fraser Coho case study, and where covariance has not changed over time or, for projection LRPs, those changes can be parameterized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du CanadaFrench-language works237,207