MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216184103 · doi:10.7565/ssp.v4.5748

Exploration of Loneliness Among Black Older Adults

2021· article· en· W3216184103 on OpenAlexaff
Blessing Ugochi Ojembe, Michael Kalu, Chigozie Donatus Ezulike, Makanjuola Osuolale John, Oluwagbemiga Oyinlola, Temitope Osifeso, Prince Chiagozie Ekoh, Anthony Obinna Iwuagwu, Lydia Kapiriri

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessEthnic groupPsychologySocioeconomic statusGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologySociologyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Loneliness is a public and social issue affecting older adults, but in varying degrees across ethnic groups. Black older adults (BOAs) are more prone to loneliness because they have unique and accumulated factors (e.g., low socioeconomic status, high number of chronic conditions) that predispose them to loneliness. This review aims to describe the extent and the nature of research activities on loneliness and identify the contributory factors to loneliness among BOAs as presented in the global literature. Methods/Design: We will follow the five steps of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework to search multiple databases from inception till June 2021. MeSH terms and keywords, e.g., “older adults,” “blacks,” and “loneliness,” will be adopted for several databases, including CINHAL, Ageline, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Registers of Control Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, Social Science Abstract. Multiple reviewers will independently screen citations (title/abstract and full text) and extract data using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. “Best fit” framework synthesis using the six social provisions of Weiss’ framework as a priori themes will guide the data analysis. Discussion: This review will inform policy development around contributory factors for loneliness among BOAs and the most relevant issues on loneliness related to BOAs.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science ProtocolsSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207