Daily solitude and well‐being associations in older dyads: Evidence from daily life assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults spend significant time by themselves, especially since COVID-19. Solitude has been associated with positive and negative outcomes. Partners need to balance social connectedness with time for one's own needs. This project examines how individual and partner solitude are associated with daily affect and relationship quality in dyads of older adults and a close other. One-hundred thirty-six older adults plus a close other rated their relationship quality and reported affect, solitude, and its characteristics (desired and bothersome) every evening for 10 days. Over and above overall associations, individual and partner effects emerged; when individual desired solitude was up, participants reported more positive affect and their partners less negative affect. When bothersome solitude was up, participants and their partners alike reported more negative affect and less positive affect. Desired solitude was associated with more support, whereas bothersome solitude was associated with less partner support. Findings provide further evidence on the potential benefits of solitude, highlighting the importance of considering the social context of what is often believed to be an individual-level phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".