Guiding principles for determining work shift duration and addressing the effects of work shift duration on performance, safety, and health: guidance from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risks associated with fatigue that accumulates during work shifts have historically been managed through working time arrangements that specify fixed maximum durations of work shifts and minimum durations of time off. By themselves, such arrangements are not sufficient to curb risks to performance, safety, and health caused by misalignment between work schedules and the biological regulation of waking alertness and sleep. Science-based approaches for determining shift duration and mitigating associated risks, while addressing operational needs, require: (1) a recognition of the factors contributing to fatigue and fatigue-related risks; (2) an understanding of evidence-based countermeasures that may reduce fatigue and/or fatigue-related risks; and (3) an informed approach to selecting workplace-specific strategies for managing work hours. We propose a series of guiding principles to assist stakeholders with designing a shift duration decision-making process that effectively balances the need to meet operational demands with the need to manage fatigue-related risks.
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 | 0.061 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".