Studying How Individuals Who Express the Feeling of Loneliness in an Online Loneliness Forum Communicate in a Nonloneliness Forum: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loneliness is a public health concern, and increasingly, individuals experiencing loneliness are seeking support on online forums, some of which focus on discussions around loneliness (loneliness forums). Some of these individuals may also seek support around loneliness on online forums not related to loneliness or well-being (nonloneliness forums). Hence, to design and implement appropriate and efficient online loneliness interventions, it is important to understand how individuals who express and seek support around loneliness on online loneliness forums communicate in nonloneliness forums; this could provide further insights into the support needs and concerns of these users. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how users who express the feeling of loneliness and seek support around loneliness on an online loneliness forum communicate in an online nonloneliness forum. METHODS: A total of 2401 users who expressed loneliness in posts published on a loneliness forum on Reddit and had published posts in a nonloneliness forum were identified. Using latent Dirichlet allocation (a natural language processing algorithm); Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (a psycholinguistic dictionary); and the word score-based language features valence, arousal, and dominance, the language use differences in posts published in the nonloneliness forum by these users compared to a control group of users who did not belong to any loneliness forum on Reddit were determined. RESULTS: It was found that in posts published in the nonloneliness forum, users who expressed loneliness tend to use more words associated with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count categories on sadness (Cohen d=0.10) and seeking to socialize (Cohen d=0.114), and use words associated with valence (Cohen d=0.364) and dominance (Cohen d=0.117). In addition, they tend to publish posts related to latent Dirichlet allocation topics such as relationships (Cohen d=0.105) and family and friends and mental health (Cohen d=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: There are clear distinctions in language use in nonloneliness forum posts by users who express loneliness compared to a control group of users. These findings can help with the design and implementation of online interventions around loneliness.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".