MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060742782 · doi:10.1301/nr.2003.oct.352-360

Planning Diets for Individuals Using the Dietary Reference Intakes

2003· review· en· W2060742782 on OpenAlexaff
Susan I. Barr, Suzanne P. Murphy, Tanya Agurs‐Collins, Mary I. Poos

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietary Reference IntakeReference Daily IntakeNutrientAllowance (engineering)Environmental healthDietary fiberReference valuesFood intakeMedicineEnergy requirementAnimal scienceGerontologyBiologyFood scienceMathematicsEndocrinologyStatisticsInternal medicineOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are now available for energy, macronutrients, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and can be used to plan diets for individuals. This article defines the four DRIs (the Estimated Average Requirement, the Recommended Dietary Allowance, the Adequate Intake, and the Tolerable Upper Intake Level), and describes two other reference standards--the Estimated Energy Requirement and the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range. Planning diets for individuals involves identifying the appropriate nutrient intake goals, translating the nutrient goals into food intake (and supplement use, if warranted), assessing the plan, and revising it if required. This process is illustrated using case studies of a female vegetarian marathon runner and an older male smoker.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207