‘<i>The company is using the credibility of our profession</i>’: exploring experiences and perspectives of registered dietitians from Canada about their interactions with commercial actors using semi-structured interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of registered dietitians (RD) in Canada regarding their interactions with commercial actors and actions undertaken to manage these interactions. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews combined with a document analysis. SETTING: Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 18). RESULTS: All participants reported interacting with commercial actors during their careers, such as receiving continuing education provided or sponsored by food companies. RD in Quebec perceive these interactions as either trivial or acceptable, depending on the commercial actor or interaction type. Participants discussed how certain interactions could represent a threat to the credibility and public trust in dietitians, among other risks. They also discussed the benefits of these interactions, such as the possibility for professionals to improve the food supply and public health by sharing their knowledge and expertise. Participants reported ten mechanisms used to manage interactions with commercial actors, such as following a code of ethics (individual level) and policies such as partnerships policy (institutional level). Finally, RD also stressed the need for training and more explicit and specific tools for managing interactions with commercial actors. CONCLUSIONS: RD in Quebec, Canada, may engage with commercial actors in their profession and hold nuanced perspectives on this matter. While some measures are in place to regulate these interactions, they are neither standardised nor evaluated for their effectiveness. To maintain the public's trust in RD, promoting awareness and developing training on this issue is essential.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".