Perceived competencies of graduating dietitians in Canada (1999) : depth and breath of learning opportunity and preparedness for practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Canada wide questionnaire survey collected data from 168 dietetics trainees and 23 preservice program coordinators regarding perceptions of preservice practice. First, to what extent were trainees and coordinators aware of and involved with the Competencies for the Entry Level Dietitian? Second, how prepared were trainees for practice? Third, what was the depth and breadth of learning opportunity in competencies of assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation? Fourth, what were the number of learning opportunities in competencies of professional practice and communication? Further, did perceptions vary with format of preservice practice (integrated or internship) or respondent type (trainee or coordinator)? Results showed most trainees received a copy of the competencies and they were used in trainee evaluation, though only 60% of trainees were very familiar with them. Preparedness for practice was rated as sufficient for 25 (56%) of the 45 competencies. Eighty-eight (61%) of the 145 competencies and sub competencies were practiced in sufficient depth and breadth or number. Preparedness ratings were higher in integrated programs than internships. Agreement between coordinator and trainee perceptions was higher in integrated programs than internships. Problems identified were in certain areas of management, communication, monitoring and evaluation, and research. Comments received related to difficulty with comprehensibility of the competencies, their usefulness as a framework for guiding preservice practice, and problems associated with use in trainee evaluation; the sometimes lack of support and guidance for trainees; benefits of integrated programs; and the greater emphasis placed on clinical nutrition than on food service or community nutrition during the programs. Recommendations are given for dietetics educators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".