Myth of empowerment in chronic illness
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.945
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.180
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
AIMS: This article presents several findings of a study, conducted between 1996 and 1998, to investigate self-care decision making in diabetes. RATIONALE: The underlying assumption of many practitioners is that an invitation to people with chronic illness to participate as equal partners is sufficient to guarantee their empowerment. DESIGN: Using grounded theory, the research examined self-care decision making using a convenience sample of 22 Canadian adults with longstanding type 1 diabetes nominated as expert self-care managers. Participants audiotaped their decision making as it occurred for 3 weeks over the course of one calendar year. These audio-recordings were followed by an interview to clarify participants' decision making and factors that affected their decisions. FINDINGS: Participants identified several covert and subtle ways that practitioners contradict their stated goal of empowerment in their interactions with diabetics. Participants revealed that despite their intention to foster participatory decision making, practitioners frequently discount the experiential knowledge of diabetes over time and do not provide the resources necessary to make informed decisions. CONCLUSION: The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Topic
- Diabetes Management and Education
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- University of British Columbia
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- MythologyEmpowermentMedicinePsychologyNursingArtPolitical scienceLiterature
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes