MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993010217 · doi:10.3148/64.3.2003.131

Dietetic Internship Forum –<i>An Opportunity to Inform</i>

2003· article· en· W1993010217 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daphne Lordly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipMedical educationPerceptionPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year in Atlantic Canada, a dietetic internship forum is held to inform potential dietetic interns of internship opportunities. This paper provides information to those planning similar events, and seeks to enhance knowledge of students' information-seeking strategies in the internship selection process. The objectives of this study were to 1. profile students who attended the 2000 forum, 2. determine their intentions, 3. determine how--and if--the forum influenced internship selection, and 4. determine overall satisfaction with the forum. A 23-item questionnaire was used to collect data from 52 forum participants (100% completion rate). Results indicated overall satisfaction with the forum. Prospective interns seek, use, and value information about potential training choices, particularly when that information concerns programs outside the Atlantic region. Participants indicated that the forum helped confirm or alter pre-forum perceptions of their first and second internship choices. The results suggest that alternative types of presentations, which would include out-of-region internship opportunities, should be explored to meet students' needs for information better.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.323
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationFrench-language works237,207