Abstracts from Dietetic Research Event – May 27-28, 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to Montreal and the 2010 Dietitians of Canada Annual Conference Research Event. This year will be quite exciting with nearly 70 high quality research and practice presentations. Topics are varied and include: public health nutrition, food service management, food production, nutrition friendly environments, clinical and applied nutrition, and dietetic practice in various settings, such as schools, community centres, hospitals, health centres, etc. The innovation this year will be the Poster Tour that will allow each presenter to discuss the highlights of his/her research under the guidance of one of the abstract review committee members or a dedicated nutritionist or graduate student. Judging abstracts was a difficult task considering the variety of topics and the large number and high quality abstracts received this year. Members of the Committee had a wide spectrum of expertise and collaborated to share their knowledge and set strict criteria for abstract selection. They also assisted in finalizing the oral and poster presentations schedules. On behalf of the membership of Dietitians of Canada, I would like to thank the Abstracts Review Committee members who took time from their busy schedules to provide their expertise to review these abstracts: Drs. Katherine Gray-Donald and Hugues Plourde from McGill University; Drs. Irene Strychar and Marie Marquis from the Université de Montréal and Dr. Maria Kalergis from the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Join me in celebrating Canadian Dietetic Research by attending the poster sessions on Thursday and Friday (May 27 and 28) and the oral presentations on Friday May 28 in the afternoon.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.504 | 0.291 |
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".