MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

When is an Individual an Individual Versus a Member of a Group? An Issue in the Application of the Dietary Reference Intakes

2006· review· en· W2119778107 on OpenAlexaff
George H. Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRural Development Administration
KeywordsDietary Reference IntakeReference valuesAllowance (engineering)Reference Daily IntakeScientific consensusPsychologyFood supplyGerontologyEnvironmental healthMedicineNutrientBiologyEcologyAgricultural scienceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) present a new paradigm for the description of nutrient requirements. Tradition and the DRI reports themselves have created an erroneous impression that the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is intended for use with individuals and the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) is to be used with populations. Two recent IOM committee reports (one on nutrition labeling and one on Women, Infants and Children [WIC] food packages) challenge that interpretation, revealing the critical issues surrounding individuals versus groups or populations. The present paper examines the issues and concludes that the median requirement and Tolerable Upper Limit (UL) are the critical reference values for both individuals and populations. The RDA is both unneeded and lacking a sound scientific basis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.256
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207