Sleep Quality and Sleep Behaviors in Varsity Athletes: A Pilot Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep hygiene practices may hinder university athletes from obtaining quality sleep to support health and performance. We sought to provide a comprehensive evaluation of sleep quality and behaviors in varsity athletes using validated sleep questionnaires: the Athlete Sleep Screening Questionnaire (ASSQ) and the Athlete Sleep Behavior Questionnaire (ASBQ). Sixty-four ( n = 64) athletes participated (54% female; 71% Caucasian). The mean age was 20.3 ± 1.7 years and the mean BMI was 23.3 ± 3.3. Fifty-one percent met the threshold for adequate sleep (7+ h) and 54% reported being somewhat/very satisfied with sleep quality. Global scores for ASSQ Sleep Difficulty and ASBQ sleep behaviors were significantly correlated ( r = 0.31; p = 0.014) and not significantly different across age, academic year, or residence. According to the ASSQ, 11% and 24% were classified as having severe or moderate sleep problems, respectively. The ASBQ categorized 62% as having “poor” sleep behaviors. Notable sleep-influencing factors included a high frequency of emotional/cognitive processing of sport-performance issues (46.9%), frequent use of light-emitting devices before bed (90%), training after 7 pm (65%), and the use of sleep medication (19%). Half of the university athletes did not meet the thresholds for adequate sleep, and some may require a referral for clinical sleep issues. The majority of these athletes' sleep behaviors do not promote adequate sleep. The ASSQ shows utility to assess gradations in clinical sleep difficulty; the ASBQ could be used in concert with the ASSQ to discern “cognitive and physiological arousal” targets for use in educational workshops designed to promote optimal sleep hygiene in university athletes.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it