MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085247074 · doi:10.1177/1054773810365957

Differences in Sleep Complaints in Adults With Varying Levels of Bed Days Residing in Extended Care Facilities for Chronic Disease Management

2010· article· en· W2085247074 on OpenAlex
Mary Fox, Souraya Sidani, Dina Brooks

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSleep (system call)DiseaseChronic diseaseGerontologyPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cohort study examined differences in perceived insomnia and daytime sleepiness in 67 adults residing in extended care facilities for chronic disease management who had varying levels of bed days. One bed day was defined as spending 24 hours in bed. Planned pairwise comparisons, using Bonferroni adjustment, were made between participants who spent 0 (n = 21), 2 to 4 (n = 23), and 5 to 7 (n = 23) days in bed during 1 week of monitoring. Participants who spent 5 to 7 days in bed had significantly greater insomnia than those who spent 2 to 4 days in bed. No group differences were found in daytime sleepiness. Based on the findings, nurses may assess subjective insomnia and explore sleep hygiene strategies, such as increasing time out of bed with patients who have high levels of 5 to 7 bed days.

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)0.002
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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.343 · 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