Exploring the relationship between social isolation, loneliness and housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant demographic shift is underway in Canada. The aging of the population, which is expected to accelerate over the next two decades, is anticipated to create new issues and challenges for planners and policy makers. Issues of social isolation and loneliness have long been recognized as problems that affect seniors. Both social isolation and loneliness have been associated with significant implications for health and well-being, yet these issues have largely been discussed only in the field of gerontology and health. This paper explores the relationships between social isolation, loneliness and housing. Key themes identified in the literature on social isolation and loneliness are used to inform a discussion on the potential for housing to help alleviate these problems. Four housing options, cohousing, congregate housing, home sharing and garden suites are presented. Each option presents a number of opportunities for greater socialization and companionship; however, each is similarly faced with a number of challenges. Despite the potential for these options to help reduce or alleviate these problems, none of the options presents a 'magic bullet' solution. Addressing social isolation and loneliness remains an extremely challenging problem for planning and greater research is needed to address the gaps in the literature.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".