MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6942544268 · doi:10.14288/1.0075899

Respondents in the Canadian Dietetic Association survey of dietetic personnel in British Columbia : a preliminary report

2014· article· en· W6942544268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCold Fusion and Nuclear Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreliminary reportService (business)Affect (linguistics)Health careAssociation (psychology)Stock (firearms)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of a changing economy and changing patterns of health care delivery in Canada, there have been many modifications in the roles of workers in the nutrition field, and many more are projected. Several manpower questions have been posed to the Canadian Dietetic Association by these changes. How many dietitians are working in Canada at the present time and where are they working? What changes are foreseen in health care delivery which will affect the roles of nutrition workers and ultimately the competencies required to fill those roles? How many people will be required to fill vacancies and future new openings? With these and other questions in mind, the Canadian Dietetic Association decided in 1977 to undertake a Canada-wide study of the need for nutrition personnel, which would have as its objectives the following: 1. The establishment of standards of nutritional service necessary to ensure an adequate nutritional level in the population. 2. The defining of roles for each level of nutritional worker in the health field and description of those competencies required to fulfill that role. 3. The establishment of an inventory (data base) of employers of nutritional workers and a basic data file on workers employed at these institutions and agencies. 4. The projection of trends in stock, based upon certain policy decisions. 5. The establishment of requirements for nutrition workers based upon trends in stock and possible policy decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicCold Fusion and Nuclear ReactionsFrench-language works237,207