MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Challenges in Using the Dietary Reference Intakes to Plan Diets for Groups

2005· review· en· W2080173519 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Murphy, Susan I. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietary Reference IntakeReference Daily IntakeEnvironmental healthAllowance (engineering)NutrientPlan (archaeology)MedicineGerontologyBiologyOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent report describes a new paradigm for planning the dietary intakes of groups, the goals of which are to achieve low prevalences of both inadequate and excessive intakes. However, there are many challenges involved in properly implementing these methods, and pilot studies are urgently needed. For individuals, the target for nutrient intakes is usually the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA); for nutrients without an RDA, the Adequate Intake (AI) can be used. Intakes should be planned so they do not exceed the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL). Several applications illustrating how to use the DRIs for planning the diets of individuals have been published, so this review will focus primarily on the methods that are recommended for planning the diets of groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.577
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.115 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207