Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which parenting styles is associated with diabetes control in children (aged 5-12 years) with type 1 diabetes, and on child and parent quality of life. METHODS: Data were collected from a total of 216 parent and child dyads, from 4 pediatric diabetes clinics in southern Ontario, using a cross-sectional survey methodology. Each parent and child independently completed the questionnaires. The study instruments included the Parenting Dimensions Inventory, Pediatric Quality of Life (diabetes specific), and chart reviews for glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels. RESULTS: The results of the study demonstrated that parenting styles were not correlated with diabetes control and were weakly correlated with quality of life. Most parents reported behaviors of authoritative or democratic parenting. The mean glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) for children in the study was slightly above optimal target range, at 8.4%. Parental education had a weak negative correlation with diabetes control. CONCLUSIONS: Parenting styles are not associated with diabetes control and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes. However, further research should assess the impact of the determinants of parenting on children with type 1 diabetes and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".