Insomnia and Health Problems in Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of, and to identify the relative contribution of selected factors associated with insomnia in the Canadian population age 15 and older. DESIGN: Weighted analysis of cross-sectional data from the Canadian General Social Survey, Cycle 6, 1991. Prevalence estimates were calculated for the total and age-specific Canadian population age 15 and older. Multiple logistic regression techniques were employed to study the contribution of an array of sociodemographic, lifestyle, stress, and physical health factors to the experience of insomnia. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: A representative sample of the Canadian household population age 15+ (n=11,924). INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four percent of the Canadian population age 15+ report insomnia. The following factors were associated with insomnia in multivariate logistic regression: female gender, being widowed or single, low education, low income, not being in the labor force, ever having smoked, life stress, specific chronic physical health problems (circulatory, digestive and respiratory disease, migraine, allergy and rheumatic disorders), pain, activity limitation and health dissatisfaction. Age was not significantly associated with insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Insomnia was highly prevalent among the non-institutionalized Canadian population age 15 and older. A very stressful life, severe pain and dissatisfaction with one's health demonstrated the highest odds ratios associated with insomnia. Increasing age per se and lifestyle factors were not significantly associated with insomnia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".