MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020670411 · doi:10.1139/h05-019

Introduction to Dietary Reference Intakes

2006· article· en· W2020670411 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Susan I. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietary Reference IntakeReference Daily IntakeAllowance (engineering)NutrientEnvironmental healthMedicineReference valuesGerontologyAnimal scienceToxicologyDemographyBiologyOperations managementEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are nutrient reference standards used for planning and assessing the diets of apparently healthy Canadians and Americans. The development of DRIs reflects a joint initiative by the United States and Canada to update, expand on, and replace the former Recommended Nutrient Intakes for Canadians and Recommended Dietary Allowances for Americans. DRIs include the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), Adequate Intake (AI), and Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL). The EAR is the average daily intake level that meets the requirement of 50% of healthy individuals in a life stage and gender group, whereas the RDA is set at a level that will meet the requirements of almost all (97%-98%) individuals in that life stage and gender group. An AI is a recommended intake level that is thought to meet the needs of almost all healthy individuals, and is set when there are insufficient data to establish an EAR (and therefore an RDA). The UL represents a threshold above which adverse effects of excessive intake may increase. In addition to these DRIs, macro nutrients have an Acceptable Macro nutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) and, for energy, an Estimated Energy Requirement (EER) is described.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207