0824 SLEEP IN THE POSTPARTUM: ACTIGRAPHY AND SLEEP DIARY DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated maternal and infant sleep during in the post-partum period, and examined the relationships between maternal and infant sleep patterns. Participants were 5 primiparous mothers and their infants. Mothers were recruited from the postpartum unit at the Jewish General Hospital. Only mothers who had a singleton, healthy, normal birth weight infant following a vaginal birth, who were living with a partner, were included. At two time periods, when infants were 2 and 6 months old, mothers recorded their own and their infants’ sleep patterns over 7 consecutive days, using a sleep diary as well as wearing actigraphs (MicroMini-Motionlogger (25 grams, Ambulatory Monitoring Inc., Ardsley, N.Y.). Mothers wore the actigraph on their wrist while infants wore it on their ankle. Although there was substantial variability in total sleep time across nights, actigraph and diary data indicate that, over a 24-hour period, infants consistently slept more than their mothers, both at 2 and at 6 months postpartum. Actigraphs indicated a median of 7.91 hours’ total sleep time for mothers at 2 months and 8.55 hours of sleep at 6 months postpartum. Infants slept 11.04 hours at 2 months and 11.64 hours at six months. Infants also had more disrupted sleep than their mothers, with a higher frequency of separate sleep periods at both time periods. Total nocturnal sleep time generally improved for both mothers and infants over time but number of 24- hour sleep episodes did not appear to change. Despite the significant sleep disruption (seen objectively in frequent awakening) that the postpartum period brings, mothers appear to be getting a “normal” amount of sleep over a 24-hour period at both 2 and 6 months postpartum. Although sleep diary and actigraphy data result in different numerical values, the two measures confirm the mothers’ resilience over this life transition. -
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".