The Role of Registered Dietitians: In Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used our experience assisting in the development of and evaluating the Alberta Nutrition Guidelines for Children and Youth (ANGCY) as a basis for exploring roles that registered dietitians (RDs) can play within health promotion, and how others perceive the RD role. Data were generated via 12 key informant interviews and observations during a multiple case study of recreation facilities that had and had not adopted the ANGCY. We also drew on dialogue and personal observations during development of the ANGCY. Dietitians working in government, academia, community settings, private practice, and industry played an important role throughout the development and implementation of the ANGCY. Some sectors proactively sought RD expertise, while others with less ability to pay accessed RDs' services less. Informants generally regarded RDs in a positive light. Findings indicate the profession should incrementally adjust training models to reflect emerging areas of practice, and highlight the need for RDs to proactively seek new avenues in which to apply their skills. These actions will help RDs remain the trusted source of food and nutrition information, not only in health care, but also within health promotion settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".