Motivation and dietary self-care in adults with diabetes: Are self-efficacy and autonomous self-regulation complementary or competing constructs?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined constructs drawn from social-cognitive theory (A. Bandura, 1986) and self-determination theory rE. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan, 1985, 1991) in relation to dietary self-care and life satisfaction among 638 individuals with diabetes. A motivational model of diabetes dietary self-care was proposed, which postulates direct links between self-efficacy/autonomous self-regulation, a d adherence/ life satisfaction. Structural equation modeling showed that both self-efficacy and autonomous self-regulation were associated with adherence (/3s =.54 and.21, respectively) and with life satisfaction (/3s =.15 and.34, respectively). Constraint analyses confirmed that self-efficacy was significantly more associated with adherence, whereas autonomous self-regulation was significantly more associated with life satisfaction. According to the model, interventions for dietary self-care and life satisfaction should focus on increasing self-efficacy and autonomous self-regulation. Key words: autonomous self-regulation, self-efficacy, motivation, diabetes, dietary self-care, life satisfaction It is generally agreed that dietary self-care is the most central element of diabetes management, although many individuals with diabetes fail to follow the recommended dietary self-care activities on a regular basis (e.g., Ary, Toobert, Wilson, & Glasgow, 1986). An area of psychology that has particular relevance to the issue of adherence to self-care activities is the study of motivation (e.g.,
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it