Difference between revisions of "Talk:Benefit-risk assessment of fish and related policy options"
m |
(About the graph) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --[[User:Olli|Olli]] 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST) | Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --[[User:Olli|Olli]] 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == About the graph == | ||
| + | |||
| + | This causal chain graph is starting to expand to become hard to read. Dark blue boxes representing important nodes are a good idea, but are all the pale blue nodes really needed to give the perception about the issue. They might be leading the eye of the focus sometimes. For me example, causal chain of stress experieced by fish is becoming to be unnecessarily extensive and probably very hard to exploid when building the model. Idea: Could there be this extensive graph which covers about all the factors and then another graph, which includes only the essential nodes needed to form a picture (variables for the model) about the problem. In short, one conseptual graph (large), and then also the graph for modelling (variables able to be quantified). | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Olli|Olli]] 08:48, 18 April 2007 (EEST) | ||
Revision as of 05:48, 18 April 2007
Maybe we could narrow down the topic more. By excluding microbiological risks, the topic could be like "Nutritional benefits & chemical risks of fish consumption and related policy options about using fish for human food". I think this topic sounds too plastic and we should work on this more, but this comment is just a starting point to discussions about issue. --Olli 10:45, 17 April 2007 (EEST)
About the graph
This causal chain graph is starting to expand to become hard to read. Dark blue boxes representing important nodes are a good idea, but are all the pale blue nodes really needed to give the perception about the issue. They might be leading the eye of the focus sometimes. For me example, causal chain of stress experieced by fish is becoming to be unnecessarily extensive and probably very hard to exploid when building the model. Idea: Could there be this extensive graph which covers about all the factors and then another graph, which includes only the essential nodes needed to form a picture (variables for the model) about the problem. In short, one conseptual graph (large), and then also the graph for modelling (variables able to be quantified).
--Olli 08:48, 18 April 2007 (EEST)
