Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6.
| dc.contributor.author | Butterworth, Doug S | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ross-Gillespie, Andrea | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-23T11:52:45Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-23T11:52:45Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This document2 first corrects some misleading results in PENG/5 through specifying the Operating Models OMs more correctly by including process error explicitly. Results from these revised OMs provide resolution of the “self-test” concerns raised in PENG/P6. However, the negative bias in estimates of the precision of the effect of fishing parameter δ remain unless the magnitude of process error is minimal compared to observation error. Since earlier analyses have indicated that process error dominates observation error in the island closure experiment penguin response data, the possibility remains of large negative bias in the estimates of precision from Sherley et al. models of the effect of fishing parameter based on the use of individual data. Ultimately only simulation tests will reveal definitively whether or not these random effects approaches do improve estimation precision, and it is pleasing to note that the authors of PENG/P6 are now engaged in pursuing such tests. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.apacitation | Butterworth, D., & Ross-Gillespie, A. (2019). <i>Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6</i> ,Faculty of Science ,Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30782 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.chicagocitation | Butterworth, Doug, and Andrea Ross-Gillespie <i>Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6.</i> ,Faculty of Science ,Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30782 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Butterworth, D., Ross-Gillespie, A. 2019. Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.ris | TY - Report AU - Butterworth, Doug AU - Ross-Gillespie, Andrea AB - This document2 first corrects some misleading results in PENG/5 through specifying the Operating Models OMs more correctly by including process error explicitly. Results from these revised OMs provide resolution of the “self-test” concerns raised in PENG/P6. However, the negative bias in estimates of the precision of the effect of fishing parameter δ remain unless the magnitude of process error is minimal compared to observation error. Since earlier analyses have indicated that process error dominates observation error in the island closure experiment penguin response data, the possibility remains of large negative bias in the estimates of precision from Sherley et al. models of the effect of fishing parameter based on the use of individual data. Ultimately only simulation tests will reveal definitively whether or not these random effects approaches do improve estimation precision, and it is pleasing to note that the authors of PENG/P6 are now engaged in pursuing such tests. DA - 2019 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PY - 2019 T1 - Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6 TI - Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6 UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30782 ER - | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30782 | |
| dc.identifier.vancouvercitation | Butterworth D, Ross-Gillespie A. Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6. 2019 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/30782 | en_ZA |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.publisher.department | Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics | en_US |
| dc.publisher.faculty | Faculty of Science | en_US |
| dc.title | Response to MARAM/IWS/2019/PENG/P6. | en_US |
| dc.type | Report | en_US |