Social Isolation and Loneliness: Differences between Older Rural and Urban Manitobans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to identify predictors of social isolation and loneliness for very old rural and urban adults. With data from the 1996 Aging in Manitoba Study (N = 1,868; age range 72-104), separate multiple regression models were constructed for rural and urban sub-samples, using the life space index (LSI) to measure social isolation as one outcome, and a loneliness index created by the authors from a combination of items to measure loneliness as a second outcome. Different factors were found to predict the outcomes for the two sub-samples. The models with isolation as the outcome produced five predictors for the rural sub-sample and three for the urban sub-sample. Only living alone was the same for both groups. The models with loneliness as the outcome produced five predictors for the rural sub-sample and two for the urban sub-sample, again with only one factor in common--four or more chronic illnesses. We conclude that health and social factors are important predictors of social isolation and loneliness, and sensitivity to these factors may improve the experience of older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".