Mindful larks and lonely owls: The relationship between chronotype, mental health, sleep quality, and social support in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronotype is related to mental health, with evening chronotypes being more susceptible to psychological disorders than intermediate and morning types. The present study investigated the relationship between chronotype, mental health, sleep quality, and social support in Canadian young adults. We surveyed 3160 university students aged 18-35 years. Participants completed the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Medical Outcomes Study - Social Support Survey. We conducted Bonferroni-corrected one-way analyses of covariance with post hoc paired comparisons to determine the relationship between the aforementioned variables, with age and sex as covariates. We further looked at the moderation of social support on the relationship between chronotype and sleep quality. Overall, 55%, 36% and 9% of participants were classified as intermediate, evening and morning types, respectively. There was a significant difference between chronotype on levels of depression, anxiety, and sleep quality, with evening types reporting more severe symptomology than morning-types and intermediate types. Morning types reported greater levels of overall social support and mindfulness. Evening types reported the lowest levels of all types of social support. Social support did not moderate the relationship between chronotype and sleep quality. This study further demonstrates the association between worse psychological well-being and eveningness and between more social support, and mindfulness in morning chronotype young adults. Education and intervention are warranted to help evening chronotypes manage the potential negative features of their circadian rhythm, as well as to cultivate a greater sense of social support and mindfulness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".