Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implication Statement If you want to offer your students an enjoyable and worthwhile interprofessional activity to learn about issues in community nutrition, your university can cook up these interprofessional culinary education workshops. Start with a few enthusiastic students from various health professional programs who can organize, promote, and lead. Include faculty and/or staff to support the students and apply for internal funding. Find workshop facilitators (e.g., chefs), and arrange for program evaluation. It is best to choose workshop topics and themes relevant to your local situation. Ensure workshops are structured to facilitate cooperative and experiential learning. Students will find these sessions informative, practical, and enjoyable. Énoncé des implications de la recherche Les ateliers culinaires sont une activité interprofessionnelle agréable et intéressante que votre université peut proposer aux étudiants qui souhaitent se familiariser avec les enjeux de la nutrition communautaire. Il suffit de réunir, pour commencer, quelques étudiants motivés issus de divers programmes de santé pour organiser, promouvoir et diriger les ateliers. Il s'agit ensuite de trouver les enseignants ou le personnel pour les soutenir, et de s'assurer d'un financement interne. Il faut ensuite trouver des animateurs d'ateliers (par exemple, un chef) et planifier l'évaluation du programme. Il est préférable d'axer les ateliers sur des thèmes adaptés à votre milieu. Les ateliers doivent être structurés de manière à faciliter l'apprentissage coopératif et expérientiel. Les étudiants trouveront ces séances instructives, pratiques et agréables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".