MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899552888 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.2809

SOLITUDE IN SOCIAL CONTEXT: ACCULTURATION, DESIRE, AND TIME IN SOLITUDE SHAPE SOLITUDE-LONELINESS LINKS

2018· article· en· W2899552888 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer C. Lay, Helene H. Fung, Da Jiang, Atiya Mahmood, Peter Graf, Christiane A. Hoppmann

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitudeLonelinessAcculturationPsychologyContext (archaeology)Social isolationSocial relationImmigrationSocial psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults spend a lot of time in solitude (without social interaction), increasing their risk of loneliness, especially if they have immigrated. Yet, older adults sometimes seek solitude. This study examines how culture, immigration, acculturation, and solitude desire shape solitude-loneliness associations. Local and immigrant adults aged 50–85 in Vancouver (59 Asian, 37 White) and in Hong Kong (56 Asian) completed 30 ecological momentary assessments over 10 days assessing current solitude, solitude desire, and loneliness. Solitude felt more lonely than social interaction, but only for individuals who desired interaction (b = -2.51, p = .047), were less acculturated to the local culture (b = -1.40, p = .006), or spent more time in solitude (b = 0.09, p = .047). Findings suggest solitude need not feel lonely if individuals desire it, are connected with their local culture, or engage in regular social interaction. We discuss implications for reducing loneliness across cultures.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207