Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To promote the new field of 'public nutrition' as a means to address, in a more efficient, sustainable and ethical manner, the world-wide epidemic of malnutrition--undernutrition and specific nutrient deficiencies, and also obesity and other nutrition-related chronic diseases. STRATEGY: Grounded in the health promotion model, public nutrition applies the population health strategy to the resolution of nutrition problems. It encompasses 'public health nutrition', 'community nutrition' and 'international nutrition' and extends beyond them. It fits within the conceptual framework of 'the new nutrition science' and is an expression of this reformulated science in practice. Its fundamental goal is to fulfil the human right to adequate food and nutrition. It is in the interest of the public, it involves the participation of the public and it calls for partnerships with other relevant sectors beyond health. Public nutrition takes a broader view of nutritional health, addressing the three interrelated determinant categories of food systems and food security; food and health practices; and health systems. It assesses and analyses how these influence the immediate determinants that are dietary intake and health status so as to direct action towards effective progress. To further enhance the relevance and effectiveness of action, public nutrition advocates improved linkages between policies and programmes, research and training. A renewed breed of professionals for dietetics and nutrition, trained along those lines, is suggested. CONCLUSION: There is a critical need to develop new knowledge, approaches and skills to meet the pressing nutrition challenges of our times.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.160 | 0.029 |
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".