Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-management's key feature is to increase patients' involvement and control in their disease and improve their well-being. Self-management is not intended to replace components of patient health care such as medication and pulmonary rehabilitation. We may be enthusiastic about recent results of self-management programs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients showing a reduction in hospital admissions. However, being interested only in patients' hospital admissions is overly narrow. The pivotal objective of self-management programs is to change patients' behavior. The success should correspond to the goals of self-management (e.g., acquiring key self-management skills such as problem solving, decision making, early symptom recognition, and taking action) and self-health behaviors (maintaining comfortable breathing, implementing an action plan in the event of an exacerbation, and facilitating exercise maintenance). Pulmonary rehabilitation is increasingly becoming a realistic component of COPD patient management, but it should not stand as an isolated intervention. Pulmonary rehabilitation should be part of an integrated care process and include self-management support (i.e., aiming to achieve a shift from management by the health care provider to management by the patients themselves, which implies structural behavior change). Changing patient behavior and ensuring maintenance are complex processes and require time.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".