Loneliness of the Blind and the Visually Impaired
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loneliness has been termed a social epidemic, especially when experienced by people with disabilities. In order to better understand how loneliness is experienced in vulnerable populations, the present study compared the qualitative dimensions of loneliness of the blind and visually impaired with the general population not on the frequency or intensity of their loneliness, but on its qualitative aspects. One hundred and eighty-seven participants responded to a questionnaire which measured the qualitative aspects of loneliness on five subscales: Emotional distress, social inadequacy, Growth and discovery, social isolation, and emotional alienation. Results indicated that as expected, the two populations differed significantly in their scores on four of the five subscales (except emotional alienation), but in the opposite direction of what was expected. That may indicate that the visually impaired person’s ability to transcend their blindness, and connect with those around them, and the larger society, in different—and not necessarily less meaningful-manner than the seeing general population. As expected, the visually impaired scored significantly higher than the general population on the Growth and development subscale.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".