Dietary Reference Intakes: Concepts and Approaches Underlying Protein and Energy Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrient reference values provide guidance for maintaining and enhancing health via standard setting and development of nutritionally improved products to decrease the risk of disease. Since 1941, the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States has developed and periodically revised recommendations for nutrients; the last (10th) edition of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) was released in 1989. In 1994 the FNB initiated an expanded approach to develop dietary reference intakes (DRI), quantitative nutrient intakes that include concepts of chronic disease risk and multiple reference values more specifically suited to various applications. In concert with Canadian scientists, 10 DRI reports have been completed since 1997 and are available for review at www.nap.edu. The DRI reports explicitly review possible functional endpoints considered in determining the adequacy of each nutrient, and differentiate between the statistical basis for assessing the adequacy of intakes for individuals and groups and providing recommended intakes, as well as levels of nutrient intake that should not be exceeded. Recommended intakes for infants are based on average volumes of intake by healthy, full-term, exclusively breast-fed infants and nutrient analysis of human milk; the recommended intake also includes nutrients contributed by complementary foods consumed during the second 6-month period of life.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".