Nutrition Education for University of British Columbia Students : Opportunities, Facilitators & Barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, the University of British Columbia (UBC) Wellness Centre’s nutrition resources are not being used by UBC students as much as desired (Stevens, H., Personal Communication, January 21, 2019). Our community partner, the UBC Wellness Centre, would like to find new ways to offer nutrition resources that will fit the needs and wants of students, with the hope of encouraging more students to use these resources. The main goal of this project is to provide the UBC Wellness Centre with information about how nutrition-related resources can capture the interest of UBC students. In collaboration with the UBC Wellness Centre and SEEDS Sustainability Program, our team developed a survey using the Qualtrics Survey software and distributed it through our individual social media accounts, posters, class announcements, and in-person with an iPad. The results of our study showed that most students prefer to learn about practical cooking skills and also prefer their resources to be easily accessible and readily available. Among other formats, websites and workshops were mentioned as the preferred style of learning. Although this sample size was not representative of the whole UBC student population, the information from these responses can provide the UBC Wellness Centre with an idea of what some students are interested in. Our team was successful in meeting most of our short-term objectives, which included completing a Qualtrics survey by mid-February and providing a summary of our relevant data to the UBC Wellness Centre. The one short-term objective that we did not meet was to collect 200 survey responses, since we were only able to collect a total of 160 responses within our time limit. The success of this project will continue to be evaluated by measuring changes in attendance at nutrition workshops and the utilization rate of nutritional resources in the future. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".