Sleep and the Elderly: Some Psychological Dimensions and their Implications for Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that there is a consensus between elderly and younger adults in respect of the high value that they attach to rest and sleep for their day to day well-being (Canada Fitness Survey, 1982 ). Yet in the case of the elderly, there are likely to be a greater diversity of factors which impinge upon sleep, due to their increased susceptibility to physical and mental infirmity and, in addition, to the adverse effects of possible endogenous alterations in circadian rhythms (Borbely and Valatx, 1984). Sleep laboratory (psychophysiological) and survey (self-report) evidence confirms that the elderly experience proportionately greater disturbances in their sleep-wake functioning than younger adults, and, as a consequence, have a commensurately higher level of hypnotic drug usage (see review by Miles and Dement, 1980 ). However, while there would appear to be no paucity of knowledge about the adverse effects of hypnotic (and other) drugs taken by the elderly (e.g., Castledon et al, 1978; Williamson and Chopin, 1980 ; and Morgan, 1983 ) there seems to be little evidence regarding their actual efficacy amongst older people ( Miles and Dement, 1980 ).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".