<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>R. M. Peterman</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Milo D. Adkison</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1996</dc:date>
  <dc:description>Bayesian methods have been proposed to estimate optimal escapement &#13;
   goals, using both knowledge about physical determinants of salmon &#13;
   productivity and stock-recruitment data. The Bayesian approach has &#13;
   several advantages over many traditional methods for estimating stock &#13;
   productivity: it allows integration of information from diverse &#13;
   sources and provides a framework for decision-making that takes into &#13;
   account uncertainty reflected in the data. However, results can be &#13;
   critically dependent on details of implementation of this approach. &#13;
   For instance, unintended and unwarranted confidence about &#13;
   stock-recruitment relationships can arise if the range of relationships &#13;
   examined is too narrow, if too few discrete alternatives are &#13;
   considered, or if data are contradictory. This unfounded confidence &#13;
   can result in a suboptimal choice of a spawning escapement goal.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1016/0165-7836(95)00405-X</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Elsevier</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Results of Bayesian methods depend on details of implementation: An example of estimating salmon escapement goals</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>