The use of puppets as a strategy for communicating with children with type 1 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of puppets is an effective strategy for promoting children to express thoughts and feelings about daily experiences . However, very little information is available about its use in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The procedures for using puppets during qualitative interviews in children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus were described, which involved three steps : 1) constructing the scenario − a “stage ” that simulates the environments they encounter (school, home) ; 2) making puppets that represent the child and people (parents, teachers, siblings, friends) encountered daily , and 3) promoting expression of thoughts and feelings using puppets during qualitative interviews . The advantages of using puppets were to allow children with type 1 diabetes mellitus to freely express thoughts and feelings about living with diabetes , to provide them with opportunities to demonstrate diabetes management behaviors , and expose factors that may interfere with diabetes management . A limitation to the use of puppets was the interviewer requiring skills to dynamically engage the child and encourage their active participation during the interaction . The use of puppets was recommended as a creative strategy for use in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus during qualitative interviews .
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".