MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279986947 · doi:10.3148/63.2.2002.62

<i>Les champs de pratique des diététistes</i> influencent leur utilisation d'Internet et leurs besoins de formation

2002· article· fr· W2279986947 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Geneviève Grenier, Marie Marquis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSante Montreal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetLimitingPrivate practiceMedical educationWork (physics)Clinical PracticeMedicinePsychologyNursingFamily medicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study documents the use of the Internet by Quebec dietitians, and addresses their specific needs according to their fields of practice. Of the 1,852 questionnaires mailed, 708 were returned. Most of the respondents have a computer at home or at work, and have access to the Internet. The Internet is used mostly at home. Factors limiting greater use of the Internet include time, knowledge and cost. The most popular services are electronic mail and the World Wide Web. Most of the respondents would be interested in training programs on database searches, on searching for information on the Internet and on evaluating the validity of information found on the Internet. Data analysis has revealed that Internet usage is related to dietitians' fields of practice. Moreover, specific training needs have been identified for clinical dietitians, dietitians in private practice and in public health, and those combining managerial and clinical activities. Results suggest the need to adapt training programs and services to dietitians' fields of practice and to develop these programs accordingly.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationFrench-language works237,207