MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922163524 · doi:10.3390/jrfm12010044

Insomnia: An Important Antecedent Impacting Entrepreneurs’ Health

2019· article· en· W2922163524 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ludvig Levasseur, Jintong Tang, Masoud Karami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaAffect (linguistics)MediationPsychologyMechanism (biology)CognitionAntecedent (behavioral psychology)Sleep qualityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insomnia (and sleep deprivation) has an important impact on multiple outcomes such as individuals’ cognitive abilities, decision-making, and affect. In this paper, drawing from sleep research, we focus on entrepreneurs’ insomnia–health relationship and test a serial mediation model that considers entrepreneurs’ insomnia as an important predictor of their poor health. More specifically, we hypothesize that insomnia heightens entrepreneurs’ stress, which leads to increased negative affect, which ultimately undermines their health conditions. Using a sample of 152 Iranian entrepreneurs, we found support for our hypotheses as our results suggest that insomnia has a positive (and detrimental) effect on poor health (via more stress and negative affect). Contrary to research calls focused on stress reduction as one performance improvement mechanism, our results suggest sleep quality as a more effective mechanism for entrepreneurs to reduce their stress and to improve their health. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research are also discussed.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→