Stress, appraisal, autonomous support and coping: an integrative perspective of adult type 2 diabetes management in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, data was collected from 165 adult type 2 diabetes patients in Newfoundland \nand Labrador to understand their psychosocial behaviour associated with blood glucose (HbA1c). \nPatient characteristics and the effect of four types of psychosocial behaviour on HbA1c are \nexamined. A high prevalence of poor glycemic control is found in the participants having BMI ≥ \n35. The participants with higher stress have a negative appraisal of diabetes. The highly stressed \ngroup has a tendency to use emotion-oriented coping and to have a poor perception of autonomous \nsupportiveness. \nTwo path models are developed conducting regressions analyses. The first one shows that stress, \nappraisal and coping can explain 7.4% of the variance in HbA1c. The second path model shows \nthat appraisal plays a role of mediator and can explain 5.8% of the variance in HbA1c. Finally, \n50.4% of the variance in stress can be explained by appraisal, coping and autonomous perception.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".