MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

US and Canadian Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for the macronutrients, energy and physical activity

2005· article· en· W1999052642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bethany A. Yon, Rachel K. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Bulletin · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietary Reference IntakeNutrientEnvironmental healthGerontologyObservational studyMedicineReference Daily IntakePhysical activityFood scienceBiologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in conjunction with Health Canada, released the sixth in a series of reports on dietary reference values for the intake of macronutrients and energy by Americans and Canadians. This report established Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for carbohydrate, fibre, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, amino acids, energy and physical activity. The DRIs replace the USA's Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) last updated in 1989, and Canada's Recommended Nutrient Intakes (RNIs), last published in 1990. A panel of 21 US and Canadian research scientists, clinicians and epidemiologists with expertise in energy, protein and amino acids, carbohydrate, fibre, sugar, lipids, physical activity and life‐stage nutrition were appointed to begin the process of reviewing observational and experimental studies published primarily in peer‐reviewed journals. The DRIs are based on scientifically grounded relationships between nutrient intake and the prevention of chronic disease, as well as the maintenance of good health. The purpose of this paper is to highlight a number of the definitions, new approaches, and key findings as they apply to the DRIs for the macronutrients, energy and physical activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition BulletinSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207