The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime: The effects of pet-human co-sleeping and bedsharing on sleep dimensions of children and adolescents
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pets are often thought to be detrimental to sleep. Up to 75% of households with children have a pet, and 30-50% of adults and children regularly share their bed with their pets. Despite these high rates, few studies have examined the effect of pet-human co-sleeping on pediatric sleep. This study compared subjective and objective sleep in youth who never, sometimes, or frequently co-slept with pets. METHODS: Children (N = 188; aged 11-17 years; M = 13.25 years) and their parents answered standardized sleep questionnaires assessing timing, duration, onset latency, awakenings, and sleep quality. Children completed a home polysomnography (PSG) sleep study for one night and wore an actigraph for two weeks accompanied with daily sleep diary. Based on reported frequency of bedsharing with pets, children were stratified into three co-sleeping groups: never (65.4%), sometimes (16.5%), frequently (18.1%). RESULTS: Overall, 34.6% of children reported co-sleeping with their pet sometimes or frequently. Results revealed largely identical sleep profiles across co-sleeping groups; findings were congruent across sleep measurement (subjective: child, parent report; objective: PSG, actigraphy). Effect sizes indicated that frequent co-sleepers had the highest overall subjective sleep quality, but longest PSG onset-latency compared to the sometimes group. CONCLUSIONS: Co-sleeping with pets was prevalent in one third of children. Sleep dimensions were similar regardless of how frequently children reported sharing their bed with their pet. Future research should examine dyadic measurement of co-sleepers to derive causal evidence to better inform sleep recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it