0954 Sleep of Gifted Children Using Actigraphy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Intellectual giftedness is characterized by an intellectual development superior to peers (QI > 120) while emotional and relational development corresponds to the age norms. Anecdotal reports from parents suggest that they sleep poorly compared to typically developing (TD) peers. We measured sleep of gifted children using actigraphy. Methods Thirteen gifted children (10 boys, mean age = 10.58, SD = 2.11) were studied. Giftedness was identified using Renzulli’s three-factor definition of giftedness conceptualise in terms of above-average ability and high levels of task commitment (refined or focused form of motivation), and creativity. Sleep was measured with actigraphy for two weeks and compared to normative data from TD children using T-tests. Results Compared to normative data from TD children, gifted children had a significantly shorter sleep latency (p < 0.001), longer sleep periods (p = 0.001), shorter total sleep time and more wake time after sleep onset (p = 0.03). These differences were present both on week nights and weekend nights except that total sleep time was shorter in gifted children only during weekends (p < 0.001). Conclusion These data suggest that gifted children sleep poorly, and more so upon weekends. Whether this correlates with daytime functioning remains to be determined. Support N/A
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".