Conceptualising sustainability in Canadian dietetic practice: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietitians (RDs) are well-positioned to promote sustainable food systems and diets. This research aims to review the literature for how RDs in Canada define sustainability and determine the types of relevant activities that exist in practice as described in published literature. METHODS: Using standardised scoping review methods, researchers searched CINAHL, ACASP, PubMed and ENVCOM databases to identify peer-reviewed articles and conducted a grey literature search to locate other publications related to sustainability in Canadian dietetic practice. Qualitative, thematic coding methods were used to examine definitions and existing practice. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guided reporting. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1059 documents and, after screening, 11 peer-reviewed and 16 grey literature documents remained. Ten unique definitions were used, the most common being Sustainable Diets. Definitions were multidimensional, including environmental, social, economic and health dimensions, and 31 unique subtopics. However, existing practice activities appear to reduce actions to one to two dimensions. Existing practice areas well-reflected include Food and Nutrition Expertise, Management and Leadership, Food Provision and Population Health Promotion. Notable gaps include action in Professionalism and Ethics and Nutrition Care. CONCLUSIONS: No single definition supports all professional contexts, and agency in choice of language to define the work is helpful for contextual clarity. Strengthening practitioners' ability to analyse issues using systems thinking and applying this in practice will help to address challenges and reduce risks of trade-offs. Updates to competency standards that reflect the breadth of existing activities, as well as curricular supports or practice standards, are needed.
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 | 0.042 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.057 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".