MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414510754 · doi:10.1111/jsr.70215

Perspectives on Dissemination of Sleep Knowledge and Standards Across Wider Europe and Beyond, the <scp>ESRS</scp> Assembly of National Sleep Societies Experience

2025· article· en· W4414510754 on OpenAlexaff
Samson Khachatryan, Л. С. Коростовцева, Morten Engstrøm, Kiril Terziyski, Shruthi Konda, Ysbrand D. van der Werf, Oana Deleanu, Barbara Gnidovec Stražišar, Sarah Hartley, P. A. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Sleep medicineHealth careQuality (philosophy)Alternative medicineMedical knowledge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep medicine and research have profound roots and traditions in Europe. Medical and health structure standards, including those related to sleep medicine, are currently regulated by respective national organisations within the European Union. However, despite this fact, the organisation and practice of sleep medicine are far from harmonious across countries, being highly dependent on national medical systems. Moreover, there is a need to involve countries outside the European Union, especially those with underdeveloped sleep medicine, whose individual needs are diverse. The current article reviews the avenues for the movement of the European Sleep Research Society's (ESRS) Assembly of National Sleep Societies (ANSS) towards improved and standardised knowledge in sleep medicine both within and beyond the EU through different activities, including the implementation of the European Examination in Sleep Medicine and the Beyond Boundaries project. Sleep knowledge dissemination, harmonisation in various countries, and advocacy for improvement of the health care system quality are the goals of the current activities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sleep ResearchSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207