Looking beyond time alone: An examination of solitary activities in emerging adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Solitude represents an important context for emerging adults' well-being; but to date, little is known about how emerging adults spend their time alone. The goals of this study were to: (1) describe and characterize solitary activities among emerging adults attending university; (2) examine links between solitary activities and indices of adjustment; and (3) explore the moderating role of affinity for solitude in these associations. METHODS: = 19.73, SD = 1.46; 59.7% female) who completed assessments of how/why they spend time alone and indices of psychosocial adjustment (e.g., well-being, psychological distress, loneliness, and aloneliness). RESULTS: Emerging adults who spent time alone predominantly thinking reported poor adjustment outcomes (i.e., higher loneliness and psychological distress, and lower well-being) and dissatisfaction with solitude, whereas those who engaged in active leisure activities or passive technology use while alone reported lower psychological distress and higher satisfaction with solitude. The negative implications of doing nothing were not attenuated at higher levels of affinity for solitude. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that some solitary activities are more beneficial than others.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".