Proceedings of the inaugural international summit for medical nutrition education and research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical Nutrition Education (MNE) has been identified as an area with potential public health impact. Despite countries having distinctive education systems, barriers and facilitators to effective MNE are consistent across borders, demanding a common platform to initiate global programmes. A shared approach to supporting greater MNE is ideal to support countries to work together. In an effort to initiate this process, the Need for Nutrition Education/Innovation Programme group, in association with their strategic partners, hosted the inaugural International Summit on Medical Nutrition Education and Research on August 8, 2015 in Cambridge, UK. Speakers from the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and India provided insights into their respective countries including their education systems, inherent challenges, and potential solutions across two main themes: (1) Medical Nutrition Education, focused on best practice examples in competencies and assessment; and (2) Medical Nutrition Research, discussing how to translate nutrition research into education opportunities. The Summit identified shared needs across regions, showcased examples of transferrable strategies and identified opportunities for collaboration in nutrition education for healthcare (including medical) professionals. These proceedings highlight the key messages presented at the Summit and showcase opportunities for working together towards a common goal of improvement in MNE to improve public health at large.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.018 |
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.
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".