[Nutrient intake: concepts and international recommendations (first part)].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This revision on nutrient intakes pretends to analyse, compare and evaluate the various concepts and data used by different national and international bodies and authorities, reflecting their turn into legal norms and their evolution in recent years. At the same time it facilitates bibliographic references and Internet websites to those sources and it offers a glossary of used terms and their acronyms. SCOPE: Four geographical territories have been considered, being split in 2 parts. First part: European Union. Second part: Spain, United States of America/Canada and FAO/WHO. Due to the extensive text of this revision there has been necessary to divide it in 2 parts which are being published in consecutive numbers of the journal Nutrici6n Hospitalaria. CONCLUSIONS OF THE 1ST PART: At the European level there should be pointed out the long time interval existing between the publication of recommendations and their legislative implementation. One can observe the resistance of some Member States of the European Community to harmonize the recommendations and the legislation within the Community frame.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".