<i>L'intégration de la recherche dans la pratique</i> chez les diététistes du Nouveau-Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In New Brunswick, we have very little information that describes practice-based research in dietetics. To encourage and promote research in this province, it is crucial to describe the place that research has in dietetic practice and determine the number of dietician in New Brunswick that received an education in research methodology. A validated questionnaire was distributed to all the members of the New Brunswick Association of Dietitians; 76% of the members filled out the questionnaire. For 85% of them, their highest level of education is the internship; 15% have a postgraduate degree, and 55% have completed a research methodology course. The dietitians having completed graduate studies perceived fewer barriers to the integration of practice-based research. The Barrier that 81% of the dietitians in the province agreed was most influential in discouraging the implementation of research to daily practice was the time allowed for research at work. Nearly two-thirds (63%) agreed that it is very improbable that they will pursue graduate studies. The probability of pursuing graduate studies decreased with the age of the dietitians: 85% agreed that "family and personal obligations" and "lack of time" were the most important barriers in pursuing graduate studies. The attitude of New Brunswick dietitians towards research was nonetheless positive.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".