Sleep and Well-Being During Covid-19 Remote and In-Person Periods: Experiences of College Faculty and Staff with and Without Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored the impacts of the remote and return to in-person work periods on sleep and well-being as reported by faculty (n = 22) and non-teaching staff (n=21) with and without disabilities. Our results show that contrary to expectations, the Covid-19 remote teaching/working period resulted in better sleep, as well as greater well-being, than the return to in-person. With respect to sleep, faculty members had slightly more negative outcomes than staff, most evident in heightened anxiety and work aspects. Faculty with disabilities had somewhat worse sleep and well-being during the remote period than faculty without disabilities. During the return to in-person work, both faculty and non-teaching staff reported more negative than positive sleep and well-being outcomes. In particular, during the in-person period faculty members experienced slightly more negative sleep outcomes related to anxiety and work, while staff members experienced slightly more negative sleep outcomes related to the need to commute and lifestyle. Our findings show that there were benefits and disadvantages to both remote and in-person work periods, suggesting a hybrid work schedule should be considered in more detail, particularly as an optional reasonable accommodation for faculty and staff with disabilities. Our study highlights that training to keep faculty abreast of the latest technological innovations, ways to promote work-life balance and steps to remedy classroom size and building ventilation to prevent the spread of disease all need urgent attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".