Talk:Concentrations of beneficial nutrients in fish

Treatment of vitamins B as summed up

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Different vitamins B should be summed up in the assessment. Closing statement: Not accepted. In addition, vitamins B are left out of the assessment. (A closing statement, when resolved, 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--2: . Vitamins B should be left out of the assessment altogether. --Jouni 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Should the variable restrict to Finland?

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: The variable should restrict to Finland. Closing statement: Not accepted. (A closing statement, when resolved, 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Number of samples

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Fish species with a very low number of samples should be kept in the assessment. Closing statement: Accepted. (A closing statement, when resolved, 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: 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. --Jouni 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Omega-3 data

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: There is not enough omega-3 data in the assessment. Closing statement: Accepted. Search for more data on omega-3 concentrations in fish. (A closing statement, when resolved, 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----2: . Correct. The search for data is an ongoing process --Olli 15:28, 17 September 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Rationale behind the chosen distribution

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Distributions should always contain a rationale and a reference of some kind. Closing statement: Accepted. (A closing statement, when resolved, 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--2: . Explanation of the rationale about the chosen distribution is highly useful and justifiable. --Anna Karjalainen 17:17, 20 November 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)