MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140498076 · doi:10.1177/0145721709333268

Parenting Children With Diabetes

2009· article· en· W2140498076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diana Sherifali, Donna Ciliska, Linda O’Mara

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Diabetes Educator · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Diabetes EducatorSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207