Sleep and Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Remote and In-Person Learning for College Students With and Without Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an email-based questionnaire study, we investigated chronotype, sleep, and well-being among junior/community college students with (n = 52) and without disabilities (n = 27) during remote (COVID-19–related) and subsequent in-person learning periods. Overall, we found no significant differences between students with and without disabilities either in chronotype or in sleep quality. Morningness and intermediate chronotypes were related to better sleep quality during both the remote and in-person periods. We also found that sleep quality was better during the remote period than during the in-person period. This finding was robust as we identified this both in quantitative and qualitative results. We also discovered that, surprisingly, students had little concern with the possibility of catching the COVID-19 virus. Findings on well-being during the remote and in-person periods were mixed, although we noted mainly negative experiences during the in-person period. The findings make it clear that return to “in person” was not “return to normal.”
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".