Development of a Public Participation and Communication Protocol for Establishing Fish Consumption Advisories
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enabling people to make an informed choice on whether to change consumption behavior is ultimately the objective of any fish consumption advisory. This will occur only if people are aware of the advisory, know and understand the advisory information, and believe the information to be true. Interactive, meaningful communication and the opportunity to participate in the process to develop and review advisories are key to achieving these attributes. A case study was undertaken in a community in Alberta, Canada (where an existing advisory was under consideration for review) to determine public awareness, knowledge, compliance, communication effectiveness, information needs, and desire for involvement related to the advisory. The information obtained from this case study was used to develop 14 guiding principles as a foundation for the incorporation of public participation and risk communication into the process of developing and reviewing fish consumption advisories.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it