When Technologies are Not Enough: The Challenges of Digital Interventions to Address Loneliness in Later Life
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses sociotechnical challenges of technology-based interventions to address loneliness in later life. We bring together participatory and multidisciplinary research conducted in Canada and Australia to explore the limits of digital technologies to help tackle loneliness among frail older people (aged 65+). Drawing on three case studies, we focus on instances when technology-based interventions, such as communication apps, were limiting or failed, seeming to enhance rather than lessen loneliness. We also unpack instances where the technologies being considered did not match participants’ social needs and expectations, preventing adoption, use, and the intended outcomes. To better grasp the negative unintended consequences of these technological interventions, we combine a relational sociological approach to loneliness with the Strong Structuration Theory developed by sociologist Rob Stones. This combined lens highlights the connection between sociotechnical factors and their agentic and structural contexts, facilitating a rich understanding of why and when technologies fail and limit.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it