MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133282972

Application of Management Procedure Framework for Outside Quillback Rockfish

2023· other· en· W7133282972 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pêches et Océans Canada

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsGroundfishRockfishFishingStock (firearms)Stock assessmentOperating modelFisheries managementFish stock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outside stock of Quillback Rockfish (Sebastes maliger, Outside Quillback Rockfish) occurs in all coastal waters outside of Groundfish Management Area 4B in British Columbia (BC). This analysis provides scientific advice for the sustainable management of Outside Quillback Rockfish consistent with the Precautionary Approach (PA) Policy through application of the Management Procedure (MP) Framework developed for BC groundfishes (Anderson et al. 2021). The MP Framework evaluates the performance of MPs across alternative plausible states of nature explored in different Operating Models (OMs). The stock status was evaluated with regards to a Limit Reference Point (LRP) and Upper Stock Reference (USR) of 0.4 BMSY and 0.8 BMSY, respectively. The 2021 spawning biomass was estimated to be 189% of BMSY (standard deviation (SD) = 13%), and above both the LRP and USR with a 99% probability, averaged across three reference OMs. Since the current stock biomass is estimated to be above the LRP, the conservation objectives are to maintain the stock: (1) above the LRP during two generations (54 years) with a minimum probability of 75%, (2) above the USR with a minimum probability of 50%; and to (3) maintain fishing mortality below the removal reference, i.e., FMSY, with a minimum probability of 50%. Other objectives include maintaining fishery access and catch. These objectives follow strategic objectives identified in workshops held in 2021 (see Haggarty et al. 2022). The generation time was estimated to be 27 years, based on the natural mortality value of 0.056 and 50% female maturity at 9.4 years. Natural mortality is based on the maximum observed age of 95 years. Since the previous assessment, the relationship between natural mortality and maximum observed age has been updated based on meta-analyses in the scientific literature. Five total OMs were explored. Three reference OMs differ in values of mean natural mortality (M) and the assumption that recreational catch is lower than estimates from the Internet Recreational Effort and Catch (iREC) survey. Two robustness OMs include an OM with lower steepness (h), and an OM that assumes lower average future recruitment. Environmental conditions affecting stock dynamics were considered with the alternative values of natural mortality, steepness, and lower recruitment OMs. Our understanding of the environment and stock productivity is not sufficient to model these relationships mechanistically. The Management Procedures (MPs) evaluated included three constant catch MPs, eight MPs based on an index of survey abundance, and a “no fishing” and “fishing at FMSY” reference MP. All MPs (except one of the constant catch MPs, which did not meet the removal reference criterion) met all three conservation objectives under the OM reference set scenarios. Among the set of satisficed MPs, there is a trade-off between long-term biomass levels and long-term catches. While the MPs varied in the levels of long term catch, all maintained a high to very high probability of staying above the LRP and USR during the projections. The index-based management procedures were implemented biennially in the projections because the hard bottom longline (HBLL) survey requires two years to sample the full area. As such, catch advice from the index-based MPs can only be updated every two years. Exceptional circumstances that would trigger a re-evaluation of the OMs will be reviewed using the survey index, age and size-structure, and life history parameters. These data are presented in the Groundfish (GF) Synopsis report (e.g., DFO 2022).

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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 Canada→French-language works237,207→