US and Canadian Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for the macronutrients, energy and physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".