MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149239230 · doi:10.1177/08982643211004174

Social Isolation Among Older Adults in Long-Term Care: A Scoping Review

2021· review· en· W3149239230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial isolationIsolation (microbiology)GerontologyLong-term careThematic analysisSocial supportPsychologyMedicineQualitative researchSociologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: A wealth of literature has established risk factors for social isolation among older people; however, much of this research has focused on community-dwelling populations. Relatively little is known about how risk of social isolation is experienced among those living in long-term care (LTC) homes. We conducted a scoping review to identify possible risk factors for social isolation among older adults living in LTC homes. Methods: A systematic search of five online databases retrieved 1535 unique articles. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Thematic analyses revealed that possible risk factors exist at three levels: individual (e.g., communication barriers), systems (e.g., location of LTC facility), and structural factors (e.g., discrimination). Discussion: Our review identified several risk factors for social isolation that have been previously documented in literature, in addition to several risks that may be unique to those living in LTC homes. Results highlight several scholarly and practical implications.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.400 · 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