Boredom and meaningful activity in adults experiencing homelessness: A mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Boredom has been reported as a frequent problem experienced by homeless persons, with implications for mental and social well-being. Purpose. This study aimed to explore the nature and impact of boredom in the lives of homeless and formerly homeless persons. Method. A mixed-methods design was used to engage 13 participants in a structured 92-item quantitative interview using six standardized measures, followed by a semistructured qualitative interview. Correlational analyses were performed with the data compiled from the quantitative interviews, and grounded theory strategies were used to analyze our qualitative data. The two analyses were integrated at the stage of interpretation. Findings. Boredom was described as a profound and pervasive experience for homeless persons, imposing deleterious impacts on mental well-being and driving substance use. A strong positive correlation between meaningful activity and mental well-being ( r s = .767, p <. 01) and a strong negative correlation between boredom and belonging in one’s community ( r s = –.771, p < .01) were identified. Implications. Boredom is a critical topic of study for occupational therapy in the area of homelessness. Future research is needed to design and test interventions to optimize the mental well-being, participation, and social connectedness of this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".