Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vigilance deficits can be observed after a period of prolonged, continuous wakefulness. In this context there has been extensive research targeting the impact of sleep deficits on different aspects of vigilance, but the underlying concept of vigilance was hardly ever addressed and discussed. One reason for this shortcoming is the unclear and ambiguous definition of the term vigilance, which is commonly used interchangeably with sustained attention and even wakefulness. This confusion is the result of a wide range of misleading definitions, starting in the 1940s, as psychologists redefined the concept of vigilance suggested by British Neurologist, Henry Head, in 1923. Nevertheless, the concept of vigilance is still useful and innovative, especially in treating sleep problems in children and young adults. This paper reviews the current usage of the term vigilance in sleep-wake-research and describes not only the benefits, but even more clearly, its limitations. By re-focusing on the definitions given by Henry Head, the concept of vigilance is an innovative way to gather new insights into the interplay between sleep- and daytime behaviors. In addition, future research on vigilance should consider three perspectives: 1st vigilance perceived as a process to allocate resources, 2nd vigilance associated with compensatory behaviors and 3rd the role of vigilance in human environmental interactions. This approach, understood as a conceptual framework, provides new perspectives by targeting sleep-wake behaviors as a 'real life' outcome measure, reflecting both physical and cognitive performance as well as sleep quality and quantity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".