Difference between revisions of "Talk:Concentrations of beneficial nutrients in fish"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: {{discussion |Dispute= Treatment of vitamins B as summed up |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) |Argumentation ={{comment|#(number): | Incorporation of vi...)
 
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Treatment of vitamins B as summed up==
 +
 
{{discussion
 
{{discussion
−
|Dispute= Treatment of vitamins B as summed up
+
|Statements= Different vitamins B should be summed up in the assessment.
−
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
+
|Resolution= Not accepted. In addition, vitamins B are left out of the assessment.
−
|Argumentation ={{comment|#(number): | Incorporation of vitamins B does not reflect any functional entity and its usefulness or rather other manner of representation needs to be further reassessed.|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 22:09, 5 November 2007 (EET)}}
+
|Argumentation =
 +
{{attack|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.|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 22:09, 5 November 2007 (EET)}}
 +
 
 +
{{attack|2|Vitamins B should be left out of the assessment altogether.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
==Should the variable restrict to Finland?==
 +
 
 +
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= The variable should restrict to Finland.
 +
|Resolution= Not accepted.
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{attack|1|It is easier to compare results when they are in one place. In addition, often the fish don't follow national boundaries.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 11:34, 10 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
== Number of samples ==
 +
 
 +
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= Fish species with a very low number of samples should be kept in the assessment.
 +
|Resolution= Accepted.
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{attack_invalid|1|There are species with only two samples. This is not enough.|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:22, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
 +
:{{attack|2|For the most consumed species (e.g. salmon and herring), there are at least eight samples, which should be enough.|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:22, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
 +
:{{attack|3|Even if there is a low number of samples with a fish that is used only a little, the uncertainty does not crucially change the overall assessment outcome.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 +
 
 +
{{defend|4|Different fish species show such different results that it is important to compare them, even if the results are uncertain.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
== Omega-3 data ==
 +
 
 +
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= There is not enough omega-3 data in the assessment.
 +
|Resolution= Accepted. Search for more data on omega-3 concentrations in fish.
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|1|Only mean values of omega-3 concentration are used. The data should be more extensive.|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:28, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
 +
:{{comment|2|Correct. The search for data is an ongoing process|--[[User:Olli|Olli]] 15:28, 17 September 2007 (EEST)}}
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
==Rationale behind the chosen distribution==
 +
 
 +
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= Distributions should always contain a rationale and a reference of some kind.
 +
|Resolution= Accepted.
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|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. |--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 16:51, 20 November 2007 (EET)}}
 +
 
 +
{{defend|2|Explanation of the rationale about the chosen distribution is highly useful and justifiable.|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 17:17, 20 November 2007 (EET)}}
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 10:48, 16 November 2009

Treatment of vitamins B as summed up

How to read discussions

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?

How to read discussions

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

How to read discussions

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)

⇤2: For the most consumed species (e.g. salmon and herring), there are at least eight samples, which should be enough. --Olli 15:22, 17 September 2007 (EEST)
⇤3: Even if there is a low number of samples with a fish that is used only a little, the uncertainty does not crucially change the overall assessment outcome. --Jouni 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

←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

How to read discussions

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)

--2: Correct. The search for data is an ongoing process --Olli 15:28, 17 September 2007 (EEST)


Rationale behind the chosen distribution

How to read discussions

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)

Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Talk:Concentrations_of_beneficial_nutrients_in_fish&oldid=11802"