Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: University nutrition students' experiences of participation in an arts module as part of a senior nutrition course were explored to gain an understanding of the relationship of art to dietetics practice. METHODS: The module comprised discussions, readings, and presentations from dietitian artists, along with three assignments: the production of art, an artist statement, and a reflection paper. The art production depicting an aspect of body image was presented to the class and optionally at a body image conference. An exploratory, qualitative methodology informed by Schön's reflective practice framework was employed. Three surveys administered at various times during the arts module were used to collect students' reflections and were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: hesitance to acceptance, emotion and connection, and relationship with dietetics. The education process facilitated a transformation among students, noted as changes in knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes over the course of the module. CONCLUSIONS: The arts provide an alternative platform for an exploration of self and others, for improving practice, and for an examination of novel ways for doing so. Reflection as an education component enables students to contemplate relationships, knowledge, emotions, and practice as interrelated and evolving entities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".