MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060473245 · doi:10.1080/15402002.2013.801345

Understanding Mental and Physical Fatigue Complaints in Those With Depression and Insomnia

2013· article· en· W2060473245 on OpenAlex
Colleen E. Carney, Taryn G. Moss, Angela Lachowski, Molly E. Atwood

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sleep Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaDepression (economics)PsychologyMental fatigueClinical psychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatigue is a concern for both people with insomnia and with depression, yet it remains poorly understood. Participants (N = 62) included those meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision) criteria for insomnia and major depressive disorder (MDD). Multiple regression examined sleep, mood, activity, and cognitive factors as predictors of mental and physical fatigue. Only the cognitive factors (i.e., unhelpful beliefs about sleep and symptom-focused rumination) were predictive of both physical and mental fatigue. Beliefs about not being able to function and needing to avoid activities after a poor night of sleep were related to both types of fatigue. Targeting these beliefs via cognitive therapy and encouraging patients to test maladaptive beliefs about sleep may enhance fatigue response in those with MDD and insomnia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it