MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135402864 · doi:10.1353/cja.2004.0025

European and Canadian Studies of Loneliness among Seniors

2004· review· en· W2135402864 on OpenAlex
Daniel Perlman

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessWelshSet (abstract data type)Similarity (geometry)Context (archaeology)PsychologySocial isolationIsolation (microbiology)Social psychologyGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a commentary on a set of five other articles reporting European and Canadian studies of loneliness among seniors. It places those works involving Canadian, Dutch, Finnish, and Welsh samples in the larger context of research on loneliness; offers reflections on the methods and findings reported in the articles; and addresses the question, Is loneliness universal? Points of similarity in the articles are identified and possible ways of reconciling discrepant findings regarding age trends and gender differences are put forward. A discrepancy model of loneliness is used as a key framework for explaining several points, including why objective social isolation and loneliness don't always go together.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.276 · 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