Interpersonal and Structural Social Isolation among African American and Black Caribbean Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social relationships are important for promoting health and well-being in men and confer many benefits that help prevent the onset and mitigate adverse impacts of disease and disability. Social isolation, or the absence of social relationships, is associated with a wide range of negative health outcomes; however, most studies of social isolation have been conducted among predominantly White samples. As a consequence, we know very little about social isolation among Black men. Using an intersectionality framework, this study examines the prevalence and correlates of social isolation among men who identify as African American or Black Caribbean. Data come from the National Survey of American Life (NSAL), a nationally representative sample of African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and Whites living in the United States. The current study focuses on men who identified as African American or Black Caribbean. Further, within this sample, we distinguish by ethnicity and nativity in examining Black men who are African American (native to the U.S.), U.S.-born Black Caribbean men, and foreign-born Black Caribbean men. Social isolation was operationalized using two constructs: interpersonal isolation and structural isolation. The analyses adjusted for age, education, income, marital status, and region. We conducted a series of Poisson regressions to determine: (1) ethnic differences in interpersonal and structural social isolation and (2) ethnic-specific correlates of interpersonal and structural social isolation among Black men. All analyses accounted for the complex study design of the NSAL. There were no significant ethnic differences among Black men for interpersonal isolation. However, U.S. born Black Caribbean men had higher rates of structural social isolation compared to African American men and foreign-born Black Caribbean men. There were very few differences in the correlates of interpersonal isolation among Black men regardless of ethnicity. However, in terms of structural isolation, African American men had more significant correlates in comparison to U.S. born Black Caribbean men and foreign-born Black Caribbean men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".