Blinded Taste Panel Evaluations To Determine if Fish from near the Oil Sands Are Preferred Less than Fish from Other Locations in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oil sands industry is rapidly expanding surface mining and bitumen extraction operations near the Athabasca River in northeastern Alberta, Canada. There are anecdotal comments that the fish from the Athabasca River have an off-taste, implying that the oil sands operations are the cause. This study was done to determine if the taste of wild fishes caught near the Athabasca oil sands was less preferred than the taste of fishes collected from two other river basins in Alberta. In blinded experiments, consumer sensory panels, of 40 to 44 participants, tasted steamed samples of each of three fish species (walleye (Sander vitreus), northern pike (Esox lucius), and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)) from three different sources in Alberta (the Athabasca River, Buck Lake, and McGregor Lake). Data analyses showed that there was no evidence from the consumer preference rankings that the taste of the fish from the Athabasca River was preferred less than the taste of fish from two other water bodies in Alberta.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".