Abstracts from Dietetic Research Event – June 14-15, 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to Toronto! On behalf of the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research, it is my great pleasure to welcome you to the 2012 Dietitians of Canada Annual Conference Research Event. This preeminent event represents the breadth and depth of dietetic research in Canada. This year we had a record-breaking number of almost 100 abstract submissions! This exemplifies the strong and significant role dietitians are playing in the research community to support all areas of dietetic practice. To date, we already have over 950 delegates attending the conference with 36 oral presentations and over 50 research posters. The abstracts cover topics including clinical nutrition, communitybased nutritional care, nutrition needs of vulnerable groups, wellness and public health, dietetic practice and education, and food safety and policy. The broad spectrum of topics is one of the exciting aspects of our profession. This will surely be a great opportunity to reacquaint yourself with old friends and to meet new colleagues through your common research interests and practice. I wish to acknowledge and congratulate all the presenters and co-authors for all their hard work and for sharing their research. New to this year’s event will be the electronic poster sessions, which is based on the popular Poster Tours from previous years. Each presenter will speak about the highlights of his/her research while the presenter’s poster is projected on to a large LCD screen. On behalf of the membership of Dietitians of Canada, I would like to thank the Abstracts Review Committee members who took time out of their busy schedules to volunteer their expertise in reviewing the abstracts. Our Abstracts Review Committee represented a broad spectrum of dietetic expertise and professional practice. I wish to thank them for their tremendous effort and contribution. Thank you to: Beth Armour from PEN of Dietitians of Canada, Dr. Pauline Darling from St. Michael’s Hospital and the University of Toronto, Dr. Alison Duncan from the University of Guelph, Mahsa Jessri from the University of Alberta, Christine Mehling from EatRight Ontario, and Dawna Royall from the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research. I would also like to acknowledge the following individuals who will assist with moderating the oral and poster sessions in conjunction with the Committee members. Thank you to: Barb Anderson, Isla Horvath, Jane Thirsk, and Pat Vanderkooy. A special thank you also goes to Isla Horvath from the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and Diana Sheh from Dietitians of Canada in supporting the Committee in the abstracts review process. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and Dietitians of Canada for their ongoing support of research in dietetics and nutrition in Canada and for their mission to foster and support new researchers and dietetic interns in this important area of practice. Please join me in celebrating this exciting event and the research of your fellow colleagues.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.691 | 0.457 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".