MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111590739 · doi:10.32920/cd.v3i2.1008

Development and Use of The Organizational Framework For Exploring Nutrition Narratives

2016· article· en· W3111590739 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Catherine Morley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Dietetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeThematic analysisPsychologyPhenomenology (philosophy)Social psychologyQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hermeneutic phenomenology was undertaken to explore eating and feeding experiences with 11 women living with changed health status and who had household feeding responsibilities. Thematic analysis yielded two distinct narratives; those in Life-the-Same (LS) group (n=3; participants whose lives were relatively the same after a period of adjustment), and the Life Altered (LA) group (n=8) (those whose lives were completely altered as a result of their condition). Participants in the LS group had adjusted to new dietary, exercise, and medication routines, achieved physiologic goals, and retained eating and feeding routines at and away from home. Participants in the LA group experienced profound changes in ingesting and digesting food, and eliminating waste, physical appearance, and in enjoyment of eating, and rarely left home. Anticipated physiologic effects of dietary change were not achieved due to physical deterioration. Family and friends took on feeding duties when the regular ‘feeder’ was acutely ill, however, participants resumed these roles as soon as they were able (even though they remained unwell) owing to the strength of role identification. The Organizational Framework for Exploring Nutrition Narratives (OFFENN) emerged from the analysis, and is comprised of four domains (Personal; Household; Beyond Household; and Unthoughts), and four filters (Events/Facts; Values/Beliefs; Actions; Emotions and Reflections). The framework offers a means to explore clients’ narratives and to invite conversations about eating and feeding; it is not meant to be prescriptive of dietary guidance, and has application in dietetics education (in preparing students for their counselling roles and in informing 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Critical DieteticsSame topicDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationFrench-language works237,207