Extend an Embrace: The Availability of Hugs Is an Associate of Higher Self-Rated Health in Later Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between the “availability of hugs” and self-rated health (SRH) in later life. Data of 20,258 older adults, aged 65 years and greater, were analyzed from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Logistic regression techniques were used to estimate the association between the availability of hugs and reporting higher SRH. Results demonstrated that participants who had hugs available to them “all,” “most,” and “some” of the time had significantly greater odds of reporting higher SRH than those who reported hugs available to them “none of the time” ( OR range = 1.31–1.46, 95% CI range = [1.10–1.74], p range = .01–.001). The availability of hugs was a stronger or more reliable associate of SRH than other established associates. As such, the potential health promoting role of hugs can be supported. Future research should examine the appropriate contexts, settings, and implementation practices for hugging interventions among consenting older adults.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".