El plan de estudios de la Licenciatura en Nutrición. Percepciones del alumnado y docentes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study plan of the Nutrition Degree includes contents that were selected to achieve the curricular objectives. In this journey, students and teachers are essential actors, when it comes to issuing their opinions. Perceptions are considered as the process by which people organize, interpret and respond to information from the world around them.Bearing in mind that the study plan of the Bachelor of Nutrition at the Faculty of Biochemistry and Biological Sciences has been in force since the creation of the degree in 2005, and has not been revised since then, it became necessary to carry out this work to analyze the current situation from the perception of said agents.A cross-sectional descriptive work, of a quantitative-qualitative design, was carried out through the application of surveys and discussion groups aimed at advanced students and teachers of the career in the last semester of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019.The results show that both actors have coincident opinions on the introduction of contents related to nutrition in the early years, in addition to the incorporation into the curriculum of subjects related to child nutrition and dietary techniques. The discrepancy in their opinions arises when assessing whether the plan is consistent with the needs of the graduate and whether it responds to the socioeconomic environment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".