Talk:Concentrations of beneficial nutrients in fish
Contents
Treatment of vitamins B as summed up
Statements: Different vitamins B should be summed up in the assessment.
Resolution: Not accepted. In addition, vitamins B are left out of the assessment. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
⇤1: Incorporation of vitamins B does not reflect any functional entity and its usefulness or rather other manner of representation needs to be further reassessed. --Anna Karjalainen 22:09, 5 November 2007 (EET) ⇤2: Vitamins B should be left out of the assessment altogether. --Jouni 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
Should the variable restrict to Finland?
Statements: The variable should restrict to Finland.
Resolution: Not accepted. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
⇤1: It is easier to compare results when they are in one place. In addition, often the fish don't follow national boundaries. --Jouni 11:34, 10 February 2008 (EET) |
Number of samples
Statements: Fish species with a very low number of samples should be kept in the assessment.
Resolution: Accepted. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
⇤1 There are species with only two samples. This is not enough. --Olli 15:22, 17 September 2007 (EEST)
←4: Different fish species show such different results that it is important to compare them, even if the results are uncertain. --Jouni 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
Omega-3 data
Statements: There is not enough omega-3 data in the assessment.
Resolution: Accepted. Search for more data on omega-3 concentrations in fish. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
←1: Only mean values of omega-3 concentration are used. The data should be more extensive. --Olli 15:28, 17 September 2007 (EEST)
|
Rationale behind the chosen distribution
Statements: Distributions should always contain a rationale and a reference of some kind.
Resolution: Accepted. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
←1: Justifiable procedure in author judgement would be to use name(s) of the author(s) used --> here e.g. (Leino O., 2007). Scientific information should always be citable. --Anna Karjalainen 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET) ←2: Explanation of the rationale about the chosen distribution is highly useful and justifiable. --Anna Karjalainen 17:17, 20 November 2007 (EET) |