MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335408672 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2014-015

Grounded achievements / Des réalisations bien ancrées

2014· article· fr· W2335408672 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mélanie Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceContext (archaeology)Professional associationHealth boardFoundation (evidence)MedicinePublic relationsMedical educationPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Melanie Morris, MEd, RD CHAIR OF THE BOARD Grounded achievements At the June national conference in Ottawa, we celebrated the achieve-ments of our members and the Association as a whole. When reflecting on our accomplishments as an organization, it is helpful to begin by reminding ourselves of our vision, mission, and values. What is Dietitians of Canada all about? It is in the context of these principles that we celebrate our accomplishments as we are halfway into achieving our Vision 2020. Our vision is to advance health through food and nutrition. Our mission, to be the voice of the profession, means that Dietitians of Canada seeks to support and advance ethical, evidence-based, best Dietetic practice and the profession’s unique body of knowledge of food and nutrition. It strives to prepare members for diverse and rewarding roles as leaders in promoting health and wellness as life-long learners and as mentors. Dietitians of Canada’s explicit values state that it will strive for excellence by modelling strategic leadership; being credible, innovative, and respectful; conducting our business with integrity; and being accountable. Are Dietitians of Canada members aware that these concepts are the foundation of Board activities that they are all captured in Dietitians of Canada Board policy and that they drive Board activities, and discussion and decision-making? Each of these stated values is rich with diverse professional expression. It is values such as these that guide professional practice and distinguish dietetic professionals from others, setting them apart as trusted partners in food and nutritional health care for all Canadians. I encourage members to revisit these concepts from time to time and to be proud of the ethical legacy that defines our profession. Stronger together.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.024
Scholarly communication0.0210.011
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0060.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.009

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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