Portrait des étudiants universitaires en nutrition du Québec : motivations, aspirations et satisfaction concernant leurs études
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the motivations, study and career objectives, and satisfaction of future nutrition professionals in Quebec. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was sent to the 158 nutrition students graduating from the three Quebec universities offering a nutrition program. Data were analyzed with SPSS software. Descriptive statistics and McNemar’s and χ2 tests were used. RESULTS: A total of 72 students filled out the questionnaire. Nutrition was the first program choice for 60% of the respondents. An interest in nutrition, health and food, and a desire to help people were the main motivations to undertake nutrition studies. Clinical nutrition is the field most favoured by the students to obtain employment, followed by public nutrition and private practice. Fifty-five percent of the students plan to pursue graduate studies in nutrition and 28% in a related field. The nutrition program met the expectations of 70% of the students. CONCLUSION: Results show practical training is required to meet the needs of the varied environments, including that of public nutrition, which is a promising field. More information on work contexts should be integrated into the study program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".