A Taskâs Cognitive Demands Influence Self-reported Performance Variances Throughout The Day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronotype describes the daily rhythm of an individualâs performance capability as it changes through the day. It is defined using the Horne-Ãstberg Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) which assesses time-of-day preference; or the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) which indicates sleep timing parameters. My hypothesis was that chronotype predominantly reflects an individualâs perceived daily rhythm in executive function. We tested this by comparing MEQ and MCTQ with the University of Toronto Inventory of Morningness and Eveningness (UTIME) Questionnaire which examines performance on scenarios requiring\ncognitive, physical, and/or emotional responses. Highest correlations were found between MEQ and UTIME tasks with high executive demand. The same UTIME tasks were also correlated with MCTQ (mid-sleep, free days), although the correlations were consistently lower than UTIME versus MEQ. Correlations among UTIME tasks and MCTQ (mid-sleep, workdays) were not linked to executive demand. Chronotype appears to reflect the perception of peak executive\nability independently of sleep pattern.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".