Developmental Evolution of Expertise in Diabetes Self-Management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following is a description of the findings of a longitudinal exploratory and descriptive research study of 22 persons nominated as expert self-managers of Type 1 diabetes. It entailed an initial interview about previous experiences with self-management, self-recorded taped diaries about self-management decisions for 1 week each, and face-to-face interviews following each weeklong recording of self-management decisions. The study generated a grounded theory about the development of expertise in diabetes self-management. The development of expertise was found to occur as transition through two or more phases, to be individualized, and to involve a complex interplay between social, contextual and personal factors, including the individual's developmental age. The research fIndings challenge the traditional understanding of rebellion in self-management as a manifestation of adolescence, behaviors other than active control as testimony to ineptitude in self-management, metabolic control as the indicator of self-management ability, and the role of others as collaborators in self-management.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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)
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 it