MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015466579 · doi:10.14738/assrj.73.7968

Characteristics of sleep-conducive music: A narrative evidence review

2020· article· en· W3015466579 on OpenAlexaff
Yuluan Wang, Annette Rivard, Christine Guptill, Carol A. Boliek, Cary A. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Sciences Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Acquisition and Education
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)PsychologyDuration (music)NarrativeIntervention (counseling)Narrative reviewMusic therapyCognitionRhythmCognitive psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistComputer sciencePsychiatryLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Sleep deficiency (SD) is a prevalent problem and has serious negative consequences for physical, cognitive, and psychological well-being. The use of music as a non-pharmacological sleep intervention has been proposed in several studies. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 randomized trials evaluating the impact of music on sleep concluded that it can decrease sleep onset delay (latency) and sleep disturbances, increases sleep duration, and improves daytime dysfunction. It appears that, to-date, evidence-based guidelines for the selection and/or production of sleep-promoting music do not exist. This review addresses that gap and synthesizes available literature towards the goal of developing guidelines grounded in the evidence-based characteristics of sleep conducive music. Design and Results: A narrative review of research papers relevant to the topic identified evidence-based characteristics of sleep-conducive music related to tempo, rhythm, pitch, volume, and duration. Conclusion: This identification and compilation of evidence-based characteristics of sleep-conducive music can underpin future research that targets development and testing of specific music to promote sleep.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Social Sciences Research JournalSame topicLanguage Acquisition and EducationFrench-language works237,207