How do adolescents with short sleep duration spend their extra waking hours? A device-based analysis of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a Brazilian sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare sedentary behaviour and physical activity between short sleepers and adequate sleepers in a sample of Brazilian adolescents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 688 adolescents wore accelerometers on the non-dominant wrist for seven days. Sleep duration, sedentary behaviour, light (LPA), moderate (MPA), and vigorous physical activity (VPA) were estimated. Participants were classified as short (<8h/night) or adequate sleepers (≥8h/night). The minutes and the percentage of time spent in each waking behaviour was compared between short and adequate sleepers. RESULTS: Participants were 16.3 years old, 50.4% were female, and 67.7% were short sleepers. Adequate sleepers engaged in less (min/day) sedentary behaviour (-53.46), LPA (-25.44), MPA (-4.27), and VPA (-0.63) compared to short sleepers. However, no differences were observed for the proportion of time (68% in sedentary behaviour, 28% in LPA, 3% in MPA, and <0.4% in VPA). CONCLUSION: Patterns of waking behaviours are similar between short and adequate sleepers.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".