Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to reveal some indicators of the quality of life of adolescents with diabetes through the four main dimensions of the quality of life, which are: health-related quality of life, psychological quality of life, social quality of life, and environmental quality of life. The study sample consisted of 10 adolescents with type 1 diabetes, 05 of whom were males and 05 were females. We relied on the descriptive analytical approach along with the method of content analysis. The results of the study concluded:
 - The presence of positive indicators in adolescents with diabetes within the four dimensions of quality of life: optimism, satisfaction, acceptance of disease, sense of activity and ability to perform duties, and access to appropriate health services.
 - The presence of negative indicators in adolescents with diabetes within the four dimensions of quality of life: a sense of anxiety and depression, low self-esteem, a sense of fatigue and poor relationships with peers
 -Kolar ,kathryn, &Rassner. (1996). quality of life in youth with insulin -depandent diabetes mellitis.Dessertation abstracts international, p. 6178.
 -Krishnavathana, h., W Loar, R., J Anderson, B., & A Heptulla, R. (2006). the role of socioeconomic status, depression,quality of life ,and glycemic contril in type1 diabetes mellitus. journal of pediatrics-elsevier.
 -Odell, M., &Delors, A. (1997). therolatioship between social and adjustement in adolescents with diabtes. dissertation abstracts international, p. 2693.
 -Wherrett, D., Huot, C., Mitchell, B., &Pacaud, D. (2013). le diabète de type1 chez les enfants et les adolescents. canadian journal of diabetes, pp. 5531-5541
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".