Dietary Reference Intakes: Implications for Fiber Labeling and Consumption: A Summary of the International Life Sciences Institute North America Fiber Workshop, June 1-2, 2004, Washington, DC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple definitions of dietary fiber have been developed and are in use around the world. The definitions vary as to which substances are considered to be fibers, the analytical methods utilized to identify and measure these fibers, and whether physiological criteria are part of the definition. A workshop entitled "Dietary Reference Intakes: Implications for Fiber Labeling and Consumption" was held by the International Life Sciences Institute North America Technical Committee on Carbohydrates to review the fiber definitions recently published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. Presentations and facilitated discussions reviewed the rationale for the IOM definitions of dietary fiber, functional fiber, and total fiber in light of evolving nutritional science. Also discussed were potential analytical, regulatory, and consumer issues involved if the US Food and Drug Administration and/or Health Canada were to implement the IOM's recommendations. Issues, concerns, and questions to be addressed are summarized here.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".