MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981961273 · doi:10.1177/1525822x02239572

Accessing Children’s Experiences of Loneliness through Conversations

2003· article· en· W1981961273 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueField Methods · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessSolitudePsychologyBoredomSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMeaning (existential)Lived experienceInterviewPsychotherapistSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In research on childhood loneliness, the predominant questions have been, What is children’s conception of loneliness? and How can it be measured? The question of how to approach children to talk about their subjective experiences of loneliness has not been adequately addressed. This article proposes a game-playing approach for initiating conversations with children about their experiences of loneliness. Excerpts from an audiotaped game-playing session with a six-year-old child are used to illustrate a typical session and analyze how it can establish common ground, shared meaning, and trust between an interviewer and an interviewee. The interview procedure provided a deeper understanding of the experiential aspects of childhood loneliness regarding lived space, lived other, lived body, and lived time. It also made it possible to distinguish the phenomenon of loneliness from the similar yet different experiences of aloneness, solitude, and boredom.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.398 · 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