MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016531445 · doi:10.1139/h05-021

Dietary Reference Intakes for the micronutrients: considerations for physical activity

2006· article· en· W2016531445 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Susan J. Whiting, Wade A Barabash

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin C and Antioxidants Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronutrientDietary Reference IntakeReference Daily IntakeEnvironmental healthAthletesPhysical activityMedicineNutrientBiologyPhysical therapyEcologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are a set of recommendations for healthy persons. For the most part, recommendations are determined experimentally under controlled conditions of light activity. During increased physical activity, it is expected that micronutrient requirements would increase relative to the inactive state. Micronutrients of interest to athletes are those associated with oxygen handling and delivery, such as iron, and vitamin D, a newly emerging function of which is to maintain muscle strength. The DRI report on electrolytes (including water) is the most recent set of recommendations. In addition to recommendations for intakes to meet needs, many micronutrients have an upper level that indicates caution in consuming a large amount. We illustrate the process of setting DRI values for the micronutrients (including electrolytes and water), and provide a summary of instances where physical activity needs were considered when DRI values were derived. Understanding the origin of DRI values for micronutrients will assist in understanding how to use the values in assessment and planning.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicVitamin C and Antioxidants ResearchFrench-language works237,207