The Role of Relationship Quality for Solitude Experiences during the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As time spent at home has significantly increased during the pandemic, reports of household conflict has also risen among people living with others (Usher et al., 2020). One solution to alleviate the potential stress of increased time with others could be carving out time to oneself. The present study investigated how living conditions (e.g., with others vs. alone) are associated with everyday desire for solitude and whether daily solitude experience comes with improved daily emotional well-being in people living with others. Furthermore, it also explored whether relationship quality is associated with solitude experience in a similar manner as living conditions. To do so, we used repeated daily life assessments from a lifespan sample (N = 215; M age = 38.3 years, SD age = 17.5; 78 % female) collected during the early pandemic (April to August 2020). Findings indicate that neither living conditions nor relationship quality were directly associated with daily desire for solitude, but higher relationship well-being was related to low preference for solitude when measured as an individual trait. In addition, relationship quality significantly moderated everyday solitude–affect links: higher relationship quality was related to reduced negative affect during solitude, and conflict was related to increased positive and decreased negative affect on solitude as compared to non-solitude days. The results imply that it is the subjective experience of relationships rather than objective living conditions that shape daily affective quality during solitude.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".