Longitudinal Location Influences Preference for Daylight Saving Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chronobiology community advocates ending the biannual practice in many countries of adjusting their clocks to observe Daylight Saving Time (DST). Many governments are actively considering abandoning this practice. While sleep and circadian experts advocate the adoption of year-round standard time, most jurisdictions are instead considering permanent DST. In guiding advocacy, it is useful to understand the factors that lead governments and citizens to prefer the various options. In October 2021, the Canadian province of Alberta conducted a province-wide referendum on adopting year-round DST, in which more than 1 million valid votes were cast. As this referendum was tied to province-wide municipal elections, the results of the referendum were reported at the community level, allowing a geospatial analysis of preference for permanent DST. While the referendum proposal was narrowly defeated (49.8% in favor), a community-level analysis demonstrated a significant East-West gradient, with eastern communities more strongly in favor and western communities more strongly opposed to the year-round DST. Community size and latitudinal position also contributed to preference, with smaller and more northern communities showing more preference for year-round DST. These findings help identify how geospatial location can influence how citizens feel about the various time options and can further help guide public advocacy efforts by the sleep and circadian communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".