MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074718430 · doi:10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60220-0

Review and Analysis of Evaluation Measures Used in Nutrition Education Intervention Research

2002· review· en· W2074718430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isobel R. Contento, Jill S. Randell, Charles E. Basch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialIntervention (counseling)Promotion (chess)PsychologyPopulationNutrition EducationHealth promotionClinical psychologyMedicineGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.008
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations353
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nutrition Education and BehaviorSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207