MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147040763 · doi:10.3109/19401736.2011.588217

FISH-BOL and seafood identification: Geographically dispersed case studies reveal systemic market substitution across Canada

2011· article· en· W2147040763 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert Hanner, Sven Becker, Dirk Steinke

Bibliographic record

VenueMitochondrial DNA · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Food Inspection AgencyOntario Genomics InstituteGenome CanadaAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsBarcodeDNA barcodingIdentification (biology)BiologyFisheryGeographyBusinessEcologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Fish Barcode of Life campaign involves a broad international collaboration among scientists working to advance the identification of fishes using DNA barcodes. With over 25% of the world's known ichthyofauna currently profiled, forensic identification of seafood products is now feasible and is becoming routine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Driven by growing consumer interest in the food supply, investigative reporters from five different media establishments procured seafood samples (n = 254) from numerous retail establishments located among five Canadian metropolitan areas between 2008 and 2010. The specimens were sent to the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding for analysis. By integrating the results from these individual case studies in a summary analysis, we provide a broad perspective on seafood substitution across Canada. RESULTS: Barcodes were recovered from 93% of the samples (n = 236), and identified using the Barcode of Life Data Systems "species identification" engine ( www.barcodinglife.org ). A 99% sequence similarity threshold was employed as a conservative matching criterion for specimen identification to the species level. Comparing these results against the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's "Fish List" a guideline to interpreting "false, misleading or deceptive" names (as per s 27 of the Fish Inspection regulations) demonstrated that 41% of the samples were mislabeled. Most samples were readily identified; however, this was not true in all cases because some samples had no close match. Others were ambiguous due to limited barcode resolution (or imperfect taxonomy) observed within a few closely related species complexes. The latter cases did not significantly impact the results because even the partial resolution achieved was sufficient to demonstrate mislabeling. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the functional utility of barcoding for the identification of diverse market samples. It also demonstrates how barcoding serves as a bridge linking scientific nomenclature with approved market names, potentially empowering regulatory bodies to enforce labeling standards. By synchronizing taxonomic effort with sequencing effort and database curation, barcoding provides a molecular identification resource of service to applied forensics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations152
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMitochondrial DNASame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207