MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511658508 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01126

Structural Validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in Chinese Undergraduate Students

2016· article· en· W2511658508 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesEducation Department of Henan Province
KeywordsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisRuminationClinical psychologySleep qualityConstruct validityAnxietyPopulationScale (ratio)Structural equation modelingPsychometricsPsychiatryMedicineInsomniaStatisticsCognitionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the structural validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in Chinese undergraduate students. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey with 631 Chinese undergraduate students was conducted, and the questionnaire package included a measure of demographic characteristics, PSQI, Chinese editions of Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression, State- Trait Anxiety Inventory, Rumination Response Scale, and Perceived Social Support Scale. Results showed that the item "use of sleep medicine" was not suitable for use with this population, that a two-factor model provided the best fit to the data as assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, and that other indices were consistently correlated with the sleep quality but not the sleep efficiency factor.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.341 · 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