Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of young women with type 1 diabetes and the ways in which their self-management of their illness may influence their perceived sense of self. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 7 women aged 18 to 22 years who had been formally given a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, and subsequent member checks were completed. Returned member checks and transcriptions were then analyzed using a form of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data including (1) "I just want to be more free, I guess"; (2) "It's just, like another part of me"; and (3) "I just kind of want to be normal, like I don't even have diabetes." A number of subthemes within each theme were also identified. DISCUSSION: Findings indicated that many aspects of the young women's day-to-day illness management routine impacted the way in which they viewed themselves. Key aspects that were identified by these women included issues with wanting to feel more free in terms of how they self-manage, trying to stay positive, and wanting to be normal, yet feeling as though they are still different from their peers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".