Retrospective Pilot Feedback Survey of 200 Users of the AIDA Version 4 Educational Diabetes Program. 2—Qualitative Feedback Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This column continues the report of a detailed, questionnaire-based, post-release feedback survey of 200 users of the AIDA educational diabetes simulator. AIDA is a free software program that permits the interactive simulation of insulin and glucose profiles for educational, demonstration, self-learning, and research purposes. Since its Internet launch in 1996 well over 700,000 visits have been logged to the AIDA Websites—including www.2aida.org—and over 200,000 program copies have been downloaded without charge. The main goals of the present study were: (1) to establish what people have thought about the AIDA software, (2) to assess the utility of the program, and (3) to ascertain how much people have actually used it. In Part 1 of this column (Diabetes Technol Ther 2006;8:419–432) an analysis was undertaken of the first 200 feedback forms that were returned by AIDA users. The questionnairebased survey methodology was found to be robust and reliable. The study established the feasibility of using a simple feedback form to survey a substantial number of diabetes software users. In addition, it yielded interesting data in terms of who are the main users of the AIDA program, and also provided technical (computer) information that aided the release of a freeware upgrade to the software. The present Diabetes Information Technology & Web- Watch column overviews qualitative feedback comments left by users as part of the questionnaire- based survey. In general, respondents seemed to find the software of educational value. The implications of these findings will be discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".