MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151874476 · doi:10.3109/07420528.2014.956361

Is daily routine important for sleep? An investigation of social rhythms in a clinical insomnia population

2014· article· en· W2151874476 on OpenAlex
Taryn G. Moss, Colleen E. Carney, Patricia L. Haynes, Andrea L. Harris

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

VenueChronobiology International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInsomniaCircadian rhythmPsychologySleep (system call)ChronotypePopulationRhythmRecreationActigraphyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryBiologyInternal medicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social rhythms, also known as daily routines (e.g. exercise, of school or work, recreation, social activities), have been identified as potential time cues to help to regulate the biological clock. Past research has shown links between regularity and healthy sleep. This study examined the regularity and frequency of daytime activities in a clinical insomnia population and a good sleeper comparison group. Participants (N = 69) prospectively monitored their sleep and daily activities for a 2-week period. Although participants with insomnia and good sleepers had similar levels of activity, relative to good sleepers, those with insomnia were less regular in their activities. Findings from this study add to the growing number of studies that highlight the relative importance of the regularity of daytime activities on sleep. Accordingly, future research should test treatment components that focus on regulating daytime activities, which would likely improve treatment outcomes.

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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.338 · 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