MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297004440 · doi:10.1300/j074v16n01_08

Unclaimed Treasures: Older Women's Reflections on Lifelong Singlehood

2004· article· en· W2297004440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Baumbusch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women & Aging · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyGrounded theoryFeelingMarital statusQualitative researchGerontologyIndependence (probability theory)SociologySocial psychologyMedicinePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ever-single, older women are a diverse group, whose experiences of singlehood have received little attention from researchers. In this qualitative study, eight women between the ages of 65 and 77 living in a mid-sized Southwestern Ontario city were interviewed about being ever single, including their perspectives of the benefits and drawbacks of this status at their current age. Data were collected in semi-structured interviews, and the constant comparative method was used for data analysis. Emergent themes illustrated how the women's stories of singlehood were affected by the sociopolitical contexts of their youth. Upon reflection, the women articulated the benefits of lifelong singlehood, strongly emphasizing their independence and "ability to be alone," which was viewed as very important as they aged. The drawbacks of singlehood focused on loneliness and the absence of a social support network, which took on particular importance as the women experienced increasing age and frailty. Overall, the participants expressed satisfaction with their marital status and defied common stereotypes about older, single women. Implications of these findings relate to the social structure of marital status and its impact upon the lives of women who remain single.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations58
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women & AgingSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207