MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding Patient Experiences With Goal Setting for Diabetes Self-management After Diabetes Education

2006· article· en· W2321538333 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsBrantford Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusFeelingPatient educationMedicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes managementNursingPsychologySocial psychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes educators need to understand self-care experiences of patients with diabetes in the early stage after diagnosis and education. A survey assessed patient-generated measures of experiences with goals (self-care behaviors) after diabetes education among patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 97) between 6 months and 1.5 years since diagnosis. Most patients set goals during diabetes education and thought that the goals were useful. There is evidence suggesting that patients experiencing difficulty with traditional self-care behaviors may use approaches to evaluate their diabetes control that are not encouraged in diabetes education, such as monitoring their physical and emotional feelings. Implications for diabetes education and counseling practices are suggested.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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