MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387537674 · doi:10.3390/nu15204326

Characteristics of Current Teaching Kitchens: Findings from Recent Surveys of the Teaching Kitchen Collaborative

2023· article· en· W4387537674 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christina Badaracco, Olivia Thomas, Jennifer Massa, Rachel Bartlett, David M. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of CincinnatiHackensack Meridian HealthUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonNorthwell HealthOsher Center for Integrative MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoVanderbilt University Medical CenterChildren's Healthcare of AtlantaVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of South AlabamaAlberta Health ServicesDartmouth CollegeCleveland ClinicEmory UniversityKaiser PermanenteUniversity of MinnesotaCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of South CarolinaNorthwestern UniversitySchool of Medicine, University of South CarolinaMoffitt Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsExperiential learningMedical educationKey (lock)Public relationsPsychologyMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching kitchens are physical and virtual forums that foster practical life skills through participation in experiential education. Given the well-supported connection between healthy eating patterns and the prevention and management of chronic diseases, both private and public organizations are building teaching kitchens (TKs) to enhance the health and wellness of patients, staff, youth, and the general community. Although implementation of TKs is becoming more common, best practices for starting and operating programs are limited. The present study aims to describe key components and professionals required for TK operations. Surveys were administered to Teaching Kitchen Collaborative (TKC) members and questions reflected seven primary areas of inquiry: (1) TK setting(s), (2) audiences served, (3) TK model(s), (4) key lines of operations, (5) team member who manages or directs the TK, (6) team member(s) who performs key operations and other professionals or partnerships that may be needed, and (7) the primary funding source(s) to build and operate the TK (among various other topics). Findings were used to articulate recommendations for organizations seeking to establish a successful TK as well as for TKs to expand their collective reach, research capacity, and impact.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207