Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietetics is a discipline which depends wholly on a robust evidence base to shape clinical practice, and there is the expectation that the 21st century dietitian not only has a thorough understanding of the scientific principles that underpin how they work, but also a strong grounding in how those principles are determined through robust research methodology, analysis, ethical approaches and application of critical skills. The modern dietetics training curriculum fully recognises this requirement and, all over the world, the dietetic profession is becoming more empowered to shape clinical decision-making through critical applications of research. Increasingly, dietitians are expanding on their clinical practice through active involvement in research and increasingly through research leadership. This increases the standing of the profession, refines therapeutic approaches and develops the knowledge connections with medicine and other health professions allied to medicine. The Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics has been very pleased to publish the abstracts from the annual BDA Research Symposium for a number of years, as this event demonstrates in microcosm the broad diversity of research in the field, and showcases activity at all levels ranging from the undergraduate project researcher to doctoral level, and from research newcomer through to established research leaders. We hope to see participants in the event go on to publish their best findings in the Journal. The themes for the Research Symposium in 2018 are well-aligned with the overall themes of Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics issues across the year. In 2018, we published 79 articles, which were broadly in the themes of clinical nutrition, dietetic and professional practice, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome, public health nutrition, nutrition support, nutritional monitoring, weight management, pregnancy and paediatrics. Our clinical nutrition portfolio has included a strong series of papers on renal nutrition, ranging from qualitative evaluations of how renal nutrition guidelines can be integrated into normal family life 1, to data providing evidence that female patients are at greater risk of sarcopenia in haemodialysis than males 2. For nutritional support and monitoring, we have published papers on the use of blended diets for gastronomy fed children 3 and the successful use of novel smartphone applications for following up patients following bariatric surgery 4. Highlights in our paediatric portfolio for this year have included the demonstration of ethnic differences in infant feeding styles, which may associate with weight gain and future feeding behaviours 5; a reflection on the challenges of weaning infants with phenylketonuria, where phenylalanine-free protein substitutes play an important role 6; and an evaluation of appropriate nutritional risk scoring tools for use with children with acute burn injuries 7. The international nature of dietetic research is not captured by the BDA Symposium presented in this issue of the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, but as Editor I am proud to report that over the last year we have published work from dietitians and nutrition researchers from the UK, Australia, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United States of America. With an ever-increasing international reach, the Journal has the capacity to inform and influence the training 8, 9, practice 10-13 and therapeutic guidelines 14, 15 followed by dietitians and clinicians all over the world.
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 | 0.068 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.012 |
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".