MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003440523 · doi:10.3390/brainsci10020071

Acute and Chronic Insomnia: What Has Time and/or Hyperarousal Got to Do with It?

2020· article· en· W3003440523 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInsomniaChronic insomniaMedicinePopulationFight-or-flight responsePsychiatryIntensive care medicineSleep disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly one-third of the population reports new onset or acute insomnia in a given year. Similarly, it is estimated that approximately 10% of the population endorses sleep initiation and maintenance problems consistent with diagnostic criteria for chronic insomnia. For decades, acute and chronic insomnia have been considered variations of the same condition or disorder, only really differentiated in terms of chronicity of symptoms (days/weeks versus months). Whether or not acute and chronic insomnia are part of the same phenomena is an important question, one that has yet to be empirically evaluated. The goal of the present theoretical review was to summarize the definitions of acute and chronic insomnia and discuss the role that hyperarousal may have in explaining how the pathophysiology of acute and chronic insomnia is likely different (i.e., what biopsychological factors precipitate and/or perpetuate acute insomnia, chronic insomnia, or both?).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.270 · 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