MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276584269 · doi:10.1177/0141076815599673

From alga to omega; have we reached peak (fish) oil?

2015· review· en· W2276584269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Clayton, Szabolcs Ladi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmegaFish <Actinopterygii>Fish oilFisheryBiologyWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryWhile the Inuit diet was highly cardio-protective and consuming oily fish within a Western diet is to a lesser degree, the case for purified fish oil supplements is less convincing. Purification of fish oil removes lipophilic polyphenols which likely contribute to the health benefits of oily fish; leaving the ω3 highly unsaturated fatty acids exposed and prone to conferring oxidative and inflammatory stress. The authors believe that due to such issues as dietary shift, it may now be inadvisable to prescribe or sell purified ω3 highly unsaturated fatty acids supplements, unless the appropriate co-factors are included.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207