Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Perceptions about males within the dietetic profession were examined among students enrolled in dietetic programs. METHODS: A survey was administered in classes or online to first- and fourth-year nutrition students in seven dietetic programs. Data were subjected to content analysis to determine why students thought more males were not choosing dietetics as a career, and what impact an increase in males choosing dietetics might have on the profession. RESULTS: Barriers to career choice were primarily gendered. Respondents believed an increase in male dietitians would be positive, increasing professional diversity. Specifically, more male role models would reach more male clients and increase male interest in dietetics as a career. Students also foresaw improved professional status, leading to greater professional respect and credibility. Current stereotyping would be challenged. Perspectives revealed heteronormative assumptions that would influence recruitment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that broadening the current sex composition of the profession could be beneficial. Attitudes and practices from inside and outside the dietetic profession can influence career choice. Further research would allow a more nuanced approach to the complex and interrelated issues associated with sex and gendered behavior as they relate to the professional complement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".