Legume promotion in counselling: an e-mail survey of dietitians.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about dietitians current practice in counselling clients about the use of legumes in a low fat, high fibre diet. An exploratory e-mail questionnaire was sent to members of Dietitians of Canada to assess: dietitian use and preferences for legumes, dietitian practice, opinions about clients attitudes and preferences, and resource needs. Counsellors (n=256) had high personal use of legumes (64% > or = 1 serving/week) and frequently recommended legumes in counselling. The legumes most preferred by respondents and their clients were: peanuts, kidney beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils. Respondents often recommended canned bean products (76%) and tofu (61%), but other legume grocery products were less often recommended. The most common client issues identified were: flatulence (87% agreed), lack of familiarity (85%), and knowledge of preparation (82%). Dietitians were not satisfied with current resources to support practice, especially those respondents providing primarily clinical counselling services. The most requested resources were: recipes (90%), pamphlets (82%), food demonstrations (75%) and Internet sites (63%). Client level research is now needed to confirm the importance of the issues identified and to develop and test strategies for legume promotion in counselling.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it