MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W118359317 · doi:10.1093/pch/17.5.241

Fish consumption by children in Canada: Review of evidence, challenges and future goals

2012· article· en· W118359317 on OpenAlexaffabout
Osnat Wine, Álvaro Osornio-Vargas, Irena Buka

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreMisericordia Community HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Fish consumptionFish <Actinopterygii>HarmEnvironmental healthBusinessMedicinePsychologyFisheryBiologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fish consumption is of great importance to children's health and is essential for neurodevelopment, which begins in pregnancy and continues throughout early childhood and into adolescence. However, fish consumption presents conflicting health outcomes associated with its nutritional benefits and its adverse contaminant risks, because both avoiding fish as well as the consumption of contaminated fish can potentially harm children. This may be challenging to communicate. The present review was performed to assess the current knowledge and recommendations around 'smart' fish-consumption decisions. Health Canada advises, as well as other advisories and guides, that fish should be consumed for its health benefits, while also informing consumers, especially women and children, to limit certain fish consumption. The current literature must attempt to handle the challenges inherent in communicating the dilemmas of children's fish consumption. Incorporation of new knowledge translation strategies are proposed as a means to raise the level of knowledge about optimal fish consumption practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207