MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899082047 · doi:10.3148/64.1.2003.12

<i>Client-Centred Nutrition Counselling:</i>Do We Know What This Means?

2003· review· en· W2899082047 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Debbie MacLellan, Shawna Berenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateAmbiguityMedicineNursingClinical PracticePsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, professional standards mandate that dietitians should use a client-centred approach to provide nutrition counselling services. Although most dietitians would probably agree that this is an important standard, how this mandate is translated into our daily practice is not always clear. The purpose of this paper is to explore the origins of the "client-centred approach" used in dietetic counselling. A historical review of selected dietetic literature is used to demonstrate the evolution of this term, the multiple meanings associated with it, the remaining ambiguity in dietetic practice today, and the need for further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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