Having time to oneself in times of extended togetherness: Solitude experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated how time to oneself (solitude) is experienced under conditions of extended togetherness with household members during the pandemic. Both structural (living arrangements) and qualitative characteristics (relationship quality and conflict) were examined for their association with solitude desire and daily solitude–affect links. We expected that people living with others and those with more high‐quality as well as those with more conflictual relationships would report better affect quality when experiencing solitude. A Canadian adult lifespan sample ( N = 141; M age = 38.43 years, SD age = 17.51; 81% female; 73% White; data collected from April to August 2020) provided information on household size and relationship characteristics and completed repeated daily life assessments of solitude desire, solitude, and affect. Findings show that living arrangements were not associated with an increased desire for solitude or better affect quality from solitude. Individuals reporting higher relationship quality and individuals reporting more conflict showed more favorable affect quality on days when they had time in solitude than individuals reporting lower quality relationships and lower conflict. Findings add to the growing solitude literature by delineating who seeks and benefits from solitude, and under what conditions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".