MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326298753 · doi:10.1097/nt.0000000000000013

Summit on Human Performance and Dietary Supplements Summary Report

2014· article· en· W2326298753 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Today · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitCertificationAthletesMedicineDietary supplementQuality (philosophy)Environmental healthPolitical scienceGerontologyBusinessGeographyPhysical therapyFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief The use of dietary supplements to enhance human performance among active individuals, athletes, the military, and other tactical populations is an increasingly popular topic that often is not well understood. There are important differences in nutrient needs between the general public and active adults. The United States has an established regulatory framework for dietary supplements, and the safety and quality of dietary supplements can be strengthened through education, third-party certification programs, and increased attention to serious adverse event reporting. This summary highlights these key issues, as well as research needs, areas for future consideration, and other topics that were discussed during the Human Performance and Dietary Supplements Summit, held August 9 to 10, 2012, in Bethesda, Maryland. A splendid review of a meeting at the National Institutes of Health on supplements and athletic performance

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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