MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121005321 · doi:10.1353/cja.2004.0026

Loneliness among Older Adults in the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada: A Multifaceted Comparison

2004· article· en· W2121005321 on OpenAlexaffabout
T.G. van Tilburg, Betty Havens, Jenny de Jong Gierveld

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessFriendshipUCLA Loneliness ScalePsychologyKinshipSocial isolationScale (ratio)GerontologyDemographySocial psychologyGeographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loneliness is experienced in many cultures. To properly assess cross-cultural differences, attention should be paid to the level, determinants, and measurement of loneliness. However, cross-cultural studies have rarely taken into account more than one of these. Differences in the level of loneliness were hypothesized on the basis of national differences in partnership, kinship, and friendship, which were assumed to be related to cultural standards within a society. Differences were examined among married and widowed older adults aged 70 to 89 years living independently in The Netherlands (N = 1,847), Tuscany, Italy (N = 562), and Manitoba, Canada (N = 1,134). Loneliness was measured with an 11-item scale. The Manitobans were high on emotional loneliness and the Tuscans were high on social loneliness. Partner status excepted, the determinants were nearly the same across the three locations. Differential item functioning (DIF) related to the three locations was observed for most items. Interactions with gender and the availability of a partner relationship were observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations142
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207