Dietetics Students’ Experiences and Perspectives of Storytelling to Enhance Food and Nutrition Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Within the formal setting of professional dietetic practice, storytelling may be used to communicate factual nutrition information in a way that acknowledges the socio-cultural and emotional experience of food, eating, and the body. Previous research has suggested that storytelling enriches undergraduate nutrition students’ understanding of information, critical thinking, and problem solving skills, uncovers prejudice and diversity, fosters emotional connections that lead to increased mutual respect, and brings the social and cultural context of professional dietetic practice to life. Dietetic educators, however, seldom incorporate narrative as a learning tool in the undergraduate nutrition classroom. To explore the possibilities of doing so, this study asked undergraduate dietetic students about their experiences with and perspectives on storytelling via a qualitative survey and focus group interview. The results indicate that storytelling can help students connect the academic and hands-on aspects of dietetic training and practice, can help bring about shifts in power among students and educators, and may allow students to develop their dietitian persona as they find their professional voice. </p>
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".