MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394288020 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.6319445

Additional file 1: of Nutrition care practices of primary care providers for weight management in multidisciplinary primary care settings in Ontario, Canada - a qualitative study

2018· dataset· en· W4394288020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphanie Aboueid, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Isabelle Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachPrimary careQualitative researchMedicineNursingFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interview guide. This supplementary file is the interview guide that was used to answer the research question of this manuscript. The interview guide includes questions on how the topic of nutrition is brought up, the enablers and barriers of bringing up the topic of nutrition, the screening tools used, how and when a dietetic referral is provided, how the dietetic referral is approached and how/if healthy eating advice is reinforced. (TXT 2Â kb)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2420.018

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.425
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207