High Turnover in Clinical Dietetics: A Descriptive Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To identify key attributes of Canadian clinical registered dietitian (RD) jobs associated with high rates of turnover. Methods: Managers of clinical RDs in Canada were eligible to complete a survey on the topic of turnover in clinical RD positions. Specifically, key details were sought regarding positions with the highest and lowest turnover in each manager’s portfolio. Results: High turnover (HT) positions turned over an average of 4.0 times in a 5-year period in contrast to 0.3 times in low turnover (LT) positions. Resignation was the top reason for turnover in both HT and LT positions. HT and LT positions were of analogous full-time equivalent, had comparable caseloads, and served clients/patients with similar diagnoses including diabetes and neurological conditions. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the frequency of turnover across positions in clinical dietetics in Canada. What differentiates HT positions from LT positions remains unclear. More research is required to guide managers seeking to balance turnover and preclude uneven nutrition care quality across units and programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".