Canadian adolescents’ solitude experiences, self-perceptions, and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores adolescents’ solitude activities, their reasons for choosing to be alone, and how they think and feel when they are away from others. Gender and age differences were also explored.ApproachWe looked at the links between solitary activities and emotional well-being and personal happiness. Sixty-one adolescents (68% female, Mage = 16.14 ± .50) completed self-report on-line measures assessing time alone, solitary activities, and indices of adjustment.FindingsMajority of participants reported that they were alone by choice, and that they were more often with others than alone. Age and gender differences emerged in time alone, feelings of self-worth, and emotional well-being.Research Limitations The demographics of participants was limited to English-speakers in Eastern Canada, and data collection was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.Practical Implications School programs could be developed to better equip adolescents with the skills necessary to be productive in, and feel positive about, time spent alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".