Food Perceptions among Adults and Registered Dietitians:Are They Similar?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine how adults and registered dietitians (RDs) perceived foods according to a frequency continuum, and to assess the differences between them.Methods: A sample of 1002 adults and 566 RDs were recruited.Participants had to associate 51 foods with a frequency continuum ("daily", "occasional" or "sometimes").Food groups were created: 1) Canada's Food Guide's groups (CFG) (n = 22), 2) High in Fat or High in Sugar foods (HFHS) (n = 16), and 3) Meals (n = 13).Results: CFG were perceived as "daily" foods (adults = 56.8%,RDs = 94.5%),HFHS as "sometimes" foods (adults = 67.2%,RDs = 59.6%) and Meals as "occasional" foods (adults = 75.8%,RDs = 58.2%).Adults (all age groups) perceived that CFG and Meals should be eaten less frequently than RDs (18 to 64 years old).Younger adults perceived these two groups as to be eaten more frequently than older respondents.Adults perceived HFHS as to be consumed less frequently than RDs (no age effect).Conclusions: While adults tend to have more severe perceptions than RDs, results show that their food perceptions are in line with an overall awareness of Canadian nutrition guidelines, suggesting the presence of a relevant popular knowledge about the value of food.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".