MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078422893 · doi:10.1207/s15402010bsm0103_3

Role of Nocturnal Cognitive Arousal in the Complaint of Insomnia Among Older Adults

2003· article· en· W2078422893 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Alapin, Eva Libman, Sally Bailes, Catherine S. Fichten

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sleep Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaArousalCognitionPsychologySleep (system call)NocturnalClinical psychologyLow arousal theoryEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceAssociation (psychology)PsychiatryMedicinePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-reported cognitive activity has been hypothesized to contribute directly to problematic sleep. We evaluated this formulation by examining nocturnal sleep parameters, daytime functioning and psychological adjustment cross-sectionally (N = 183) in four groups of older adults: good and poor sleepers with high and low cognitive arousal. Results indicate that when sleep quality was controlled for, individuals with high and low nocturnal cognitive arousal did not differ on either nocturnal or daytime aspects of the insomnia complaint. They were, however, less well adjusted psychologically. The pattern of findings suggests that high cognitive arousal contributes indirectly to the overall insomnia experience through its association with psychological maladjustment, rather than interfering with sleep per se. Treatment of late-life insomnia should include assessment and, possibly, clinical management of psychological adjustment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sleep MedicineSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207