MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158796169 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsab072.287

288 Chronotype-dependent impact of napping on sleep behavior in rotating shift workers

2021· article· en· W3158796169 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Kervezee, Fernando Gonzales-Aste, Philippe Boudreau, Diane B. Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronotypeNapEveningMorningShift workPsychologyActigraphySleep debtSleep (system call)Circadian rhythmAudiologyMedicineSleep deprivationPsychiatryInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Rotating shift work is known to adversely impact sleep. Napping is one of the strategies that workers can use to mitigate the effect of shift work on their sleep. In this study, we investigated the effect of chronotype on napping behavior in police officers involved in rotating shift work. Methods Actigraphy-based sleep measures and chronotype information was available from 74 police officers (20 women and 54 men; age [mean ± SD]: 32 ± 5.4 years) that participated in a 35-day field study during which they worked morning, evening, and night shifts. A generalized linear mixed model was used to assess the effect of shift type, chronotype, and their interaction on the likelihood to take a nap, adjusted for relevant covariates. In addition, linear mixed models were used to determine the effect of shift type, chronotype, and their interaction on sleep duration with and without taking into account napping duration. Results The likelihood to take a nap was influenced by an interaction between shift type and chronotype (χ2(2) = 11.2, p = 0.004). Earlier chronotype was linked to a lower likelihood to take naps during days with morning shifts and a higher likelihood during days with night shifts. Napping modulated the effect of shift type and chronotype on daily sleep duration, most notably during night shifts: while chronotype was associated with the duration of the main sleep period during night shifts, with the main sleep period being 1.7 h [95% C.I.: 0.6 – 2.8] shorter in the earliest chronotypes compared to the latest chronotypes, this effect was attenuated and no longer significant when napping duration was taken into account (difference in total sleep duration in latest chronotypes vs earliest chronotypes during nights shifts: 0.9 [−0.1 to 1.9] h). Conclusion Napping attenuates the chronotype-dependent effect of atypical work schedules on sleep duration in this population of shift-working police officers. These findings highlight the need to take into account chronotype when assessing the effect of shift work on sleep behavior. Support (if any) The Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRRST) and Fonds de Recherche du Québec–Santé (FRQS).

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207