MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112113062 · doi:10.32920/cd.v3i1.666

The Trusted Expert as an ideological code: The social organization of dietetic knowledge

2016· article· en· W3112113062 on OpenAlex
Daphne Lordly

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Dietetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyStatus quoFrame (networking)Point (geometry)Knowledge managementSocial knowledgePsychologyMedical educationPublic relationsMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research was undertaken to explore what counts as dietetic knowledge. Dietetics prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) practice was the research entry point. PLAR involves the measurement of non-formal knowledge for credit. Official dietetic texts were examined, and dietetic practitioners and accreditors were interviewed. This paper uses findings from those analyses to suggest that what comes to be counted, as dietetic knowledge is a particular kind of dietetic knowledge that is seen to support the institutional version of the trusted expert. Dietitians may unknowingly be operating from within an ideological frame that perpetuates the homogenation and the hierarchization of dietetic knowledge. A knowledge status quo is created as discussions about dietetic knowledge are captured within an ideological circle.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.383 · 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