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 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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".