MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281631522 · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2022.853564

Assessing Institutional Support From Dietetics Associations Toward Integration of Sustainable Food Concepts in Dietetics Practice

2022· article· en· W4281631522 on OpenAlexaff
Edith Callaghan, Rachael Powell, Liesel Carlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityFood systemsSustainable agricultureBusinessTest (biology)AnalyticsKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceData scienceFood securityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degrees to which diets are consistent with food system sustainability, are the result of influences across scales of social interaction. This study considers the importance and limitations of institutional influence over integration of sustainable food systems ideas and concepts in dietetics practice. Working with the International Confederation of Dietetics Associations (ICDA) and their Member Country Associations our objectives are to (a) understand ways by which ICDA could contribute to global sustainable food systems, (b) develop a method for assessing ICDA's contribution to sustainable food systems and (c) test initial data collection options for this assessment. Assessment of institutional support for sustainable food system integration to practice was conducted by examining usage data (from Google Analytics) of the ICDA sponsored online sustainable food system Toolkit, and website content analysis. Study results establish baseline data and indicate initially modest support for backing integration of sustainable food system concepts within the dietetics profession.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sustainable Food SystemsSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207