<p>Cross-Sectional Survey of Sleep Practices of Australian University Students</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep insufficiency is often associated with the life of a university student, yet it is well known that inadequate sleep can have a negative impact on physical and mental health and be detrimental to cognitive skills for learning. The aim of this study was to replicate a Canadian study to survey university student sleep practices, the way in which students address any sleep issues, and the students' preferred method to receive targeted sleep information. METHODS: An anonymous on-line survey was promoted to all enrolled students at one Australian University in August 2017. RESULTS: In total, 601 students responded to the survey. One third indicated that they had insufficient sleep (less than 6.5 hrs). Almost two thirds reported a perception of not getting sufficient sleep. There was a significant association between the reported number of sleep hours, and the perception of high-quality sleep. Strategies to get to sleep included the use of social media which is counter to best practice in sleep hygiene. CONCLUSION: The study supports the need for education about sleep health coupled with stress management to better the demands of student life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".