Happiness and Hope for Success in T1DM Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Happiness and hope are essential parts of human health. One of the main purposes of health care, including diabetes care, are to achieve happiness and a sense of purpose in life. Material and methodDuring educational workshops a short survey concerning the level of happiness and hope for success in the group of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) patients was carried out. 120 patients anonymously filled in Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and a Hope for Success Questionnaire (KNS).Results and conclusionsThe level of subjective happiness in T1DM patients was lower than in general population for both sexes, for all age categories apart from people older than 50, who seem to be happy and satisfied with their life with no differences compared to the general population. In terms of hope for success, T1DM teenagers and adults aged 27-50 did not differ from the general population. T1DM patients older than 50 turned out to have higher hope for success in life that other T1DM patients. Special attention should be paid to patients in young adulthood (18-26), who seem to be the most pessimistic group of T1DM patients, with low self-esteem and low believe in their possibilities.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".