MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113249306 · doi:10.32920/cd.v3i1.654

The Art and Science of Conversation in Dietetics

2016· article· en· W3113249306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Anne McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Dietetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationMotivational interviewingCraftInterviewSet (abstract data type)Communication skillsPsychologyBehaviour changeMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicineNursingComputer scienceSociologyCommunicationVisual artsPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health communication is intended to assist client health behaviour change. Dietitians have an intent to assist nutitiron behaviour change with clients who present with a nutritionally related condition but dieititans are not consistantly trained in motivational behaviour skills. This can lead to professional strain. In recent years, a counseling method known as motivational interviewing has earned a position as a viable method of client communication. This paper uses a conversation between a dietitian and a client to illustrate the skills set and leads the reader to consideration of how to improve their art and craft of communication within their chosen profession.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.382 · 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.

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

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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