Assisting friendships, combating loneliness: users' views on a ‘befriending’ scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loneliness and isolation can be a major cause of unhappiness and can contribute towards depression and mental illness in older age. These associations are recognised by academics, policy makers and older people's representative organisations alike in several countries, and many corrective ad hoc and country-specific initiatives have been supported. This study examines the opinions of the users of a local home-visiting befriending service in the United Kingdom. The befrienders are volunteers, and most users were introduced to the service by female relatives or health service professionals. Positive opinions of the service predominated, and users placed a high value on the reliability of their befrienders. The service provided the users with an opportunity to develop a new bond, and many reported friendly reciprocity, which they recognised as an ingredient of ‘real’ friendship. These friendships sometimes developed beyond the agreed rules and remits of the ‘formal’ service, and incorporated various forms of supplementary assistance and social activities. The paper demonstrates the value of befriending services and examines carefully the aspects of their implementation that required exceptional sensitivity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".