Difference between revisions of "Talk:Concentrations of beneficial nutrients in fish"
m |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
− | | | + | |Statements= Different vitamins B should be summed up in the assessment. |
− | | | + | |Resolution= Not accepted. In addition, vitamins B are left out of the assessment. |
|Argumentation = | |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|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)}} | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
− | | | + | |Statements= The variable should restrict to Finland. |
− | | | + | |Resolution= Not accepted. |
|Argumentation = | |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)}} | {{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)}} | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
− | | | + | |Statements= Fish species with a very low number of samples should be kept in the assessment. |
|Outcome= Accepted. | |Outcome= Accepted. | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
{{discussion | {{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 = | |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)}} | {{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)}} | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
− | | | + | |Statements= Distributions should always contain a rationale and a reference of some kind. |
− | | | + | |Resolution= Accepted. |
|Argumentation = | |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|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)}} |
Revision as of 09:07, 16 November 2009
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: Resolution not yet found. (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) |