MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394979275 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae067.0213

0213 Latent Typologies of College Students’ Sleep-related Habits and Behaviors

2024· article· en· W4394979275 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jack S. Peltz, Ronald D. Rogge

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychosocial Factors Impacting Youth
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologySleep (system call)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction With 43% of college students obtaining less than the recommended 7-9 hours of sleep per night and with over 75% reporting feeling tired/sleepy most days of the week (American College Health Association, 2023), this population is at significant risk for mental health, physical, and academic problems (Gaultney, 2010; Peltz & Rogge, 2016). Research has tended to focus on links between deficient sleep and negative outcomes via variable-center approaches (e.g., linear modeling), which may fail to capture individuals who exhibit multivariate sleep patterns (Yue et al., 2022). The present study used a latent profile analysis to identify subpopulations based on an extensive group of sleep-related habits and behaviors endorsed by a large sample of college students. Methods The current sample’s mean age (N=638, 82.4% female) was 21.3 years (SD=2.4; range 18-34), and 64.3% of participants were white, with 19.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.9% Black, 6.7% Hispanic/Latinx, and 2.5% multi-racial or “other.” Approximately 60.5% of the sample lived on campus, and 56.8% maintained part- or full-time employment while attending school. The sleep-related habits and behaviors included in the latent profile analysis included the following scales: sleep disturbance, daytime impairment, environmental noise, sleep environment, sleep competency, sleep hygiene, work hours, problematic smartphone use, chronotype, and melatonin usage. Results Five sleep classes were identified including two more adaptive groups (great sleepers-23% & typical sleepers-35%), and three groups reporting greater sleep challenges (poor but conscientious sleepers-19%, poor sleepers-20%, & self-sabotaging sleepers-3%). The two adaptive groups reported fewer depressive/anxiety symptoms and higher GPAs, whereas the groups reporting disrupted sleep reported greater depressive/anxiety symptoms, life stress, and lower GPAs. The poor but conscientious sleepers were distinguished by better sleep environments and sleep hygiene (with slightly lower impairment), whereas the sabotaged sleepers were distinguished by poorer sleep hygiene, sleep environments, and greater problematic phone and alcohol use (with slightly greater impairment). Regressions predicting individual, interpersonal, and adaptive functioning highlighted that the typologies contributed unique predictive validity toward understanding college student functioning. Conclusion Our results highlight the diversity of sleep typologies present in college students. Students falling into poor/problematic sleep groups remain at risk for negative psychosocial and other health-related outcomes. 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)0.001
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicPsychosocial Factors Impacting YouthFrench-language works237,207