MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047673943 · doi:10.1177/0265407509106718

Causal beliefs, social participation, and loneliness among older adults: A longitudinal study

2009· article· en· W2047673943 on OpenAlex
Nancy E. Newall, Judith G. Chipperfield, Rodney A. Clifton, Raymond P. Perry, Audrey Swift, Joelle C. Ruthig

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

VenueJournal of Social and Personal Relationships · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyAttributionFriendshipSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loneliness can be seen as a social failure subject to causal search: Why am I lonely? Why do I lack friends? According to attribution theory, answers to these questions can influence emotions, motivation, and behaviours. This study examined the relationships between various affiliative causal beliefs (i.e., beliefs about loneliness and friendship development), social participation, and loneliness among older adults (72+ years). Cross-sectional and longitudinal (over five years) results showed that more strongly endorsing internal/controllable causal beliefs (i.e., believing that making friends depends on effort) related to greater social participation. Moreover, greater social participation related to less loneliness. External/uncontrollable causal beliefs predicted greater loneliness. In fully addressing loneliness, it may be important to focus on people's causal beliefs.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.293 · 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