Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish consumers may incur benefits and risks from eating fish. Health advisories issued by states, tribes, and other entities typically include advice about how to limit fish consumption or change other behaviors (e.g., fish cleaning or cooking) to reduce health risks from exposure to contaminants. Eating fish, however, may provide health benefits. Risk communicators and fish consumers have suggested the importance of including risk comparison information, as well as health risk-benefit comparisons in health advisory communications. To improve understanding about how anglers fishing in waters affected by health advisories may respond to such risk-risk or risk-benefit information, we surveyed Lake Ontario (NY, USA) anglers. We interviewed by telephone 4,750 anglers, 2,593 of which had fished Lake Ontario in the past 12 months and were sent a detailed mail questionnaire (1,245 responded). We posed questions varying the magnitude of health risks and health benefits to be gained by fish consumption, and varied the population affected by these risks and benefits (anglers, children, women of childbearing age, and unborn children). Respondents were influenced by health benefit and health risk information. When risks were high, most respondents would eat less fish regardless of the benefit level. When risks were low, the magnitude of change in fish consumption was related to level of benefit. Responses differed depending on the question wording order, that is, whether "risks" were posed before "benefits." For a given risk-benefit level, respondents would give different advice to women of childbearing age versus children, with more conservative advice (eat less fish) provided to women of childbearing age. Respondents appeared to be influenced more strongly by risk-risk comparisons (e.g., risks from other foods vs. risks from fish) than by risk-benefit comparisons (e.g., risks from fish vs. benefits from fish). Risk analysts and risk communicators should improve efforts to include risk-risk and risk-benefit comparisons in communication efforts, and to clarify to whom the health risks and benefits from fish consumption may accrue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".