MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205131452 · doi:10.1080/01634372.2021.2019163

Are Older People Living Alone Socially Isolated? A Qualitative Study of Their Experiences

2022· article· en· W4205131452 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maryse Soulières, Michèle Charpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Social Work · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Social isolationQualitative researchPsychological resilienceCompromiseGerontologyPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Older peopleActivities of daily livingIsolation (microbiology)Social psychologySociologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the experiences of social isolation among older people living alone. The current state of knowledge suggests that they are at a higher risk of social isolation which, in turn, can compromise their health and well-being to varying degrees. Yet, few qualitative studies have tried to understand the subjective experience of living alone and the ways it can impact older people's relationships. The data presented here are based on 43 individual interviews with men and women aged 65 to 93 living alone in the Montreal area (Canada), and group discussions with 120 actors involved in intervention. The results showed that the majority of the participating older people did not see living alone as a problem. Their stories revealed the extent of their resilience and their ability to maintain satisfactory social relations with family and peers. However, for a minority, mostly men over 80 years old, solo living translated into being alone and could become problematic. The article presents reflections for social work intervention, inviting practitioners to consider different vulnerabilities affecting the capacity of older people living alone to maintain their social networks and highlighting the importance of fostering reciprocity in their relationships.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological Social WorkSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207