MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394977810 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae067.0339

0339 The Perception of the Negative Impact of Workload and Study Load in Canadian University Students

2024· article· en· W4394977810 on OpenAlexaffabout
Félix-Gabriel Duval, Jean-François Caron, Geneviève Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadPerceptionPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyAudiologyComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Studies showed that university students are at risk of presenting sleep difficulties. Various factors, including academic workload, and employment status can significantly impact their sleep. The present study aimed to investigate specific factors affecting sleep quality in Canadian university students. Methods A total of 1169 Canadian university students completed an online survey. Information about classes, hours devoted to study and work, and the negative impact of their studies and paid work on their sleep was gathered. A multiple regression and a simple linear regression analyses were done to verify the contribution of 1) study load and 2) workload (job) on the perception of a negative impact on sleep. Results In total, 64.8% of students were enrolled in at least 4 classes. They spent an average of 23.9 hours per week on their studies. A total of 47.3% reported a negative impact of 7 and more out of 10 (10 being the worst) of their studies on sleep. Analyses on study load show a significant model (F(2, 865)=33.13, p< 0.001) that explained 7% of the variance in the perception of a negative impact of studies on sleep. Results show that being enrolled in more classes (b=.29, t(865)=4.92, p<.001) and devoting more time to their studies (b=.03, t(865)=5.42, p<.001) significantly predict perception of a higher negative impact of studies on sleep. In total, 65.6% of students reported having a job, working an average of 20.1 hours per week. Results show that 56.1% reported a negative impact of 7 or more of their job on sleep. Analyses on workload show a significant model (F(1, 578)=109.91, p<.001) that explained 16% of the variance in the perception of a negative impact of their job on sleep. Results suggest that a higher number of hours worked (b=.10, t(578)=10.48, p<.001) significantly predict perception of a higher negative impact on sleep. Conclusion These results raise important issues regarding the study-work-sleep balance of Canadian university students. Many of them have a heavy study load, while many also have a job. Given the importance of sleep for mental health and cognitive performance, these results are of great concern. Support (if any)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207