Communicating Diabetes Best Practices to Clients
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
PURPOSE: The majority of people with type 2 diabetes do not meet dietary and physical activity recommendations. It is not well understood how diabetes educators translate diet and physical guidelines for their clients and if diabetes educators have sufficient resources to promote healthy eating and physical activity. This research addressed these questions through exploratory qualitative interviews. METHOD: A total of 13 diabetes educators who work in Alberta, Canada, were interviewed. RESULTS: The reasons for lack of client uptake of lifestyle recommendations were complex and interwoven. The strongest theme to emerge was the clients' prior knowledge and skills affecting their ability to uptake knowledge. However, educators recognized that clients are affected by social, environmental, cultural, and personal factors. CONCLUSIONS: Health system and societal issues cause a cascade effect resulting in difficulties for both educators and clients. To achieve appropriate treatment of type 2 diabetes, changes need to occur at a health systems level.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it