“Your Kid Has Potential, But They Need Sleep”: Teacher Perspectives on School‐Based Sleep Promotion in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient sleep is a growing public health concern. Thirty percent of Canadian children and youth are not meeting national sleep recommendations. Inadequate sleep can negatively influence students' academics and physical and psychosocial health. Schools have been identified as ideal health promotion settings to influence children's health including their sleep behaviors. The objective of this study was to explore teachers' perspectives on sleep behaviors and their role in school-based sleep promotion. METHODS: Nineteen elementary teachers were purposively sampled from the greater Edmonton area, Alberta, Canada. Interpretive description was used as the guiding method, and data were generated through one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Inductive descriptive thematic analysis was used to identify interview themes. RESULTS: Three themes related to teachers' perspectives on sleep behaviors and school-based sleep promotion were identified: the importance of students' sleep, prioritizing sleep as part of teaching and learning, and a culture of healthy sleep habits. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that teachers considered sleep to be essential for elementary students' academic success and wellbeing, and a whole school approach was necessary to support a healthy sleep culture in schools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".