MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2261790234 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.962v1

The association between sleep duration and obesity amongst Canadians aged 12 and over

2015· preprint· en· W2261790234 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maha Temkit, Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityBody mass indexGhrelinMedicineDemographyLife expectancyLeptinSleep (system call)GerontologyAffect (linguistics)Community healthPopulationEnvironmental healthPsychologyInternal medicinePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may trigger risk of chronic illness, reduce life expectancy, and affect quality of life. Body Mass Index (BMI), which relates the body’s weight with height, has been widely used and accepted as a simple method to classify medical risk by weight status. Several variables are thought to be correlated with obesity in Canadian children, adolescents, and adults. The objective of this project is to investigate the effect of sleep duration, leptin levels, and ghrelin levels on the prevalence of obesity in Canada. The number of hours spent sleeping per night and self-reported BMI data from the 2011-2012 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) are analyzed. The CCHS covers approximately 98% of the Canadian population aged 12 and over. It is hypothesized that a lack of sleep and later bed times are associated with a greater daily energy intake, lower leptin levels, and higher ghrelin levels, ultimately leading to obesity. Data analysis indicates a negative correlation, thus the hypothesis is accepted.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→