Assessment of Atlantic Herring in NAFO Div. 3KLPs to 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of Newfoundland east and south coast Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) stock complexes considered data to the spring of 2021. During this assessment, stock status indices were updated for Bonavista Bay-Trinity Bay and Fortune Bay using data from the spring research gillnet program; the results of a similar short-term program in Placentia Bay were also presented. Results of recent acoustic surveys in White Bay-Notre Dame Bay, Bonavista Bay-Trinity Bay, St. Mary’s Bay-Placentia Bay and Fortune Bay were reviewed. There was not enough recent data to provide an update for Conception Bay-Southern Shore. Inshore acoustic surveys of northeast and south coast herring stock complexes were used to produce biomass indices from 1983 to 2001. These surveys were reinstated in 2019, and the results were presented at this assessment. For White Bay-Notre Dame Bay, the acoustic survey biomass index for 2020 (13,219 t) was similar to what was observed in the last survey in 1998 but much lower than the 1980s; samples collected during the survey were comprised of small herring indicating potential strong recruitment. Catch rates in the spring research gillnet program in Bonavista Bay-Trinity Bay increased substantially in 2021, after being well below the reference period (1990–2005) mean for the previous five years. The stock status index increased after decreasing in 2019 and 2020. Catch rates in the recent short-term research gillnet program in Placentia Bay were below the reference period mean from 2018 to 2021, but were slightly higher than those observed in the early 2000s. The biomass index from the winter 2021 St. Mary’s Bay-Placentia Bay acoustic survey (2,407 t) was the second lowest in the time series, slightly higher than what was observed in 2000 (2,000 t). Catch rates in the spring research gillnet program in Fortune Bay increased slightly in 2020 but declined in 2021, remaining well below the reference period mean. The biomass index for Fortune Bay (5,425 t), derived from the winter 2020 acoustic survey, was higher than the last survey index value in 2001 (3,452 t) but significantly lower than the two previous (18,885 t and 30,408 t in 1997 and 1999, respectively).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".