MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017089072 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12018

Forensic Identification of Seal Oils Using Lipid Profiles and Statistical Models

2012· article· en· W2017089072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret H. Broadwater, Gloria T. Seaborn, John H. Schwacke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsBlubberGas chromatographyEuropean unionChromatographyGas chromatography–mass spectrometryPolyunsaturated fatty acidSeal (emblem)Fish <Actinopterygii>Fish oilFatty acidChemistryFood scienceBiologyMass spectrometryFisheryBiochemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seal blubber oils are used as a source of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in Canada but prohibited in the United States and (FA) European Union. Thus, a reliable method is needed to identify oils originating from seals versus fish. Two lipid profiling methods, fatty acid analysis using gas chromatography and triacylglycerol (TAG) analysis using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, were applied with statistical models to discriminate commercial oils and blubber samples harvested from marine fish and seals. Significant differences were observed among FA profiles, and seal samples differed from each of the fish oils (p ≤ 0.001). FA and TAG profiles were used to discriminate sample groups using a random forest classifier; all samples were classified correctly as seals versus fish using both methods. We propose a two-step method for the accurate identification of seal oils, with preliminary identification based on FA profile analysis and confirmation with TAG profiles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207