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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".