Sociocultural Variations of Coping Strategies for Sleep Difficulties in Couple Relationships in Canada and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The couple relationship (marriage/cohabitation) is, for most adults, the primary social context of sleep.Although there is a growing literature on couples' sleep, no qualitative cross-cultural study on this topic has yet been published.The aim of the present study was to explore the strategies used by adult couples with sleep difficulties from two different cultures, as well as the potential sociocultural variations related to these strategies.Six couples in Quebec City (Canada) and five couples in Fortaleza (Brazil), of which one or both partners experienced sleep difficulties, were recruited.Participants completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and gave open-ended reports regarding their sleep every morning for a week.They also took part in an in-depth semistructured interview for couples.The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the Critical Phenomenological Method.The participants' strategies in the face of sleep difficulties fell into three modalities: individual, common and shared, and common and independent.Within these modalities, seven strategies were identified in both research sites: body and mind relaxation before sleep, stress reduction in daily life, reduction of sleep performance anxiety, respect of the partner's sleep, intervention or drug use to induce sleep or to reduce diurnal sleepiness, diet monitoring, and naps.The present study reveals that the coping strategies used by partners are related not only to the individual, but can be shared, and are closely related to the sociocultural, economic and environmental contexts of their respective countries.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".