MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924476787 · doi:10.2196/13076

Identifying Sleep-Deprived Authors of Tweets: Prospective Study

2019· article· en· W2924476787 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sara Melvin, Amanda Jamal, Kaitlyn Hill, Wei Wang, Sean D. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of Mental HealthOffice of the President, University of California
KeywordsSleep deprivationSleep (system call)Social mediaPsychologyTracking (education)Quarter (Canadian coin)MedicineComputer sciencePsychiatryWorld Wide WebCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social media data can be explored as a tool to detect sleep deprivation. First-year undergraduate students in their first quarter were invited to wear sleep-tracking devices (Basis; Intel), allow us to follow them on Twitter, and complete weekly surveys regarding their sleep. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether social media data can be used to monitor sleep deprivation. METHODS: The sleep data obtained from the device were utilized to create a tiredness model that aided in labeling the tweets as sleep deprived or not at the time of posting. Labeled data were used to train and test a gated recurrent unit (GRU) neural network as to whether or not study participants were sleep deprived at the time of posting. RESULTS: Results from the GRU neural network suggest that it is possible to classify the sleep-deprivation status of a tweet's author with an average area under the curve of 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use social media to identify students' sleep deprivation. The results add to the body of research suggesting that social media data should be further explored as a potential source for monitoring health.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207