Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the concept of scope of practice in dietetics in Canada. METHODS: Using interpretative description methodology, data were collected through 4 phases. This article reports on phases I and IV. In phase I, 8 provincial dietetic regulatory bodies participated in semi-structured telephone interviews on dietetic scope of practice. Phase IV consisted of a document analysis of Canadian dietetic scope of practice statements. RESULTS: A review of dietetic statements found in legislation across Canada has shown considerable variability in terms of length, wording, and reference to specific practice areas. Phase I participant discussion focused on 3 concepts: creating a scope of practice, using a scope of practice, and perceived or expected outcomes of a scope of practice. CONCLUSION: Dietetic scopes of practice statements are a product of a complex multi-player process. The nature of provincial health care makes it unrealistic to expect similar dietetic scope of practice statements across all provinces. However, maintaining relationships between dietetic regulatory bodies can aid in the replication of ideas, best practices, and policies between provinces.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".