MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134482071 · doi:10.3109/07420520903502895

CIRCADIAN PREFERENCE AND COLLEGE STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT SLEEP EDUCATION

2010· article· en· W2134482071 on OpenAlex
Nancy Digdon

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueChronobiology International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedtimeEveningMorningPsychologyChronotypeSleep (system call)PreferenceDevelopmental psychologyCognitionArousalSleep onsetClinical psychologyCircadian rhythmInsomniaSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study used social cognitive theory as a conceptual framework to investigate whether college students' beliefs about their sleep were compatible with sleep education, and whether incompatibility was greater for evening than morning or intermediate types. Students at a Canadian college (n = 499) completed an investigator-designed measure of outcome expectancies about how their sleep is affected by recommended sleep practices, self-efficacy beliefs about the ease of implementing the recommendations, a question about sleep status (i.e., good sleeper/poor sleeper), and the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM). Contrary to predictions, outcome expectations of evening types did not differ from those of morning or intermediate types for 24 of the 26 items. Chi square tests indicated that most students' beliefs about the effects of sleep scheduling, caffeine consumption, sleep environment, and bedtime arousal were compatible with sleep education, whereas those about exercising, doing stimulating or important work close to bedtime, or using their beds for studying or watching TV were incompatible with sleep education. Consistent with predictions, ANOVA results indicated that global self-efficacy scores of evening types were lower, as were their item scores pertaining to sleep scheduling (i.e., napping, bedtimes, rise times, and staying in bed too long) and cognitive arousal in bed (i.e., thinking, worrying, or problem solving in bed or going to bed stressed, angry, nervous, or upset) than were those of intermediate or morning types. Results of an ANCOVA showed that evening preference was associated with poorer self-efficacy when differences in sleep status were controlled. Finally, Pearson correlations and stepwise multiple regression showed evening preference and describing oneself as a poor sleeper both contributed to low self-efficacy. These findings are relevant to the refinement of sleep education. Content included in sleep education needs to consider what students already know about sleep so that education is relevant, credible, and not redundant. Sleep education also needs to address lower self-efficacy of evening types for implementing sleep recommendations. Conclusions reported in this study should be considered tentative because they were based on a single Canadian sample using a novel measure. The generalizability of the results remains to be determined.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.304
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