A Comparative Analysis of the Nutritional Quality of Salmon Species in Canada among Different Production Methods and Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional information of fresh seafood, including salmon, is not commonly available to the public, which can lead to misconceptions. The aim of this study was to determine the nutritional content of salmon fillets, comparing: (1) Canadian salmon, both wild (pink, chinook, and sockeye) and farmed (Atlantic salmon); (2) Canadian farmed Atlantic salmon grown in ocean net pens or land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS); and (3) farmed Atlantic salmon raised in Canada compared with Scotland, Chile, and Ireland. Samples were purchased from retail stores in Canada and analyzed for moisture, crude protein, total lipid, fatty acids, amino acids, cholesterol, mercury, and color. The greatest differences in nutritional content were between species, rather than if it was wild or farmed. Compared to salmon raised in net pens, salmon raised in RAS had three times more eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) + docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) per serving (0.7/100 g vs. 2.3/100 g, respectively), twice as much omega-3s (14% vs. 30%) and redder in color (24.7 vs. 30.1) but higher in saturated fats (18% vs. 24%). Scottish salmon had over double the amount of EPA + DHA per 100 g (1.6 g) than salmon from Canada (0.70 g), Chile (0.66 g), and Ireland (0.61 g). While nutritional content differed among salmon types, each type can provide dietary essential nutrients that can benefit consumers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".