Dice, Golf Balls, and CDs: Assumptions About Portion Size Measurement Aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Portion size measurement aids (PSMAs) are used extensively by dietitians. In this cross-sectional, descriptive study, we explored the degree of consistency and concordance between measured and putative volumes of selected household and sport-related PSMAs that are commonly used for nutrition education and dietary assessment. METHODS: An online search of portion size resources yielded several governmental and academic descriptions of household PMSAs (e.g., a compact disc, a nine-volt battery) and sport-related PMSAs (e.g., a golf ball) and their purported dimensions. The spherical items were purchased locally and measured using electronic digital calipers; measurements were then converted to volumes, in millilitres. RESULTS: Overall, we observed a high degree of heterogeneity in how different educational resources related sport-related PSMAs to portion sizes of food. The mean percentage of error between the measured and putative volumes of PSMAs varied considerably. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the inaccurate use of PSMAs can lead to systematic bias in nutrition education and misreporting of dietary intake during dietary assessment. Dietitians should exercise caution when using PSMAs because these may not reflect the true portion size they are meant to represent.
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 | 0.172 | 0.561 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".