Dietetic Scope of Practice in Saskatchewan: Dietitian Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the concept of scope of practice for dietetics in Saskatchewan. METHODS: Using interpretative description methodology, data were collected through 4 phases. This article reports on phases II and III. In phase II, 92 Saskatchewan Registered Dietitians (RDs) participated in an online survey on scope of practice. In phase III, 8 Saskatchewan RDs participated in a 3-week online focus group. RESULTS: Results from phases II and III indicate that participants saw numerous opportunities in defining, understanding, and working with a scope of practice. Without a scope of practice, participants were interpreting their role from a combination of documents (e.g., ethics, research) and stakeholders (e.g., employers and colleagues). Current confusion amongst employers, other health professions, and RDs themselves regarding the role of dietitians was identified. CONCLUSION: Most participants believed a scope of practice would provide guidance to employers, other health professions, the public, regulatory bodies, and RDs themselves about the role of a dietitian. Dietetic regulators should continue to provide clear guidelines to their members and employers on safe dietetic practice. Dietitians need to be certain they are safely practicing within provincial policies and their own professional knowledge and skill at all times.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".