Waking Up Younger Together: Better Sleep Quality is Linked to a Younger Subjective Age in Older Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Contextual Model of Subjective Age proposes that daily experiences, including health and recovery, influence the salience of one’s age leading to within-individual variability in subjective age. Daily sleep quality may be one indicator shaping subjective age. Since both sleep quality and subjective age can be shaped by social partners, this study extended past work by examining daily life fluctuations in sleep quality and subjective age among Canadian older couples. We analyzed data from 67 older couples living in Canada (Age: M = 68.4 years, SD = 6.3; 49% female) who provided morning ratings of sleep quality and subjective age over ten consecutive days. We pre-registered the study. After accounting for covariates, findings using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model indicate that, as hypothesized, increases in sleep quality in both actors and partners were associated with decreases in subjective age. This suggests that when older adults and their partners experience better sleep quality, they report a younger subjective age upon waking, relative to days following poor sleep quality. These findings will be discussed in the context of daily experiences shared by older couples, which may influence variability in their subjective age.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".