MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389546455 · doi:10.3917/spub.234.0423

L’intégration sociale protège-t-elle vraiment contre la solitude ? Déterminants genrés dans une population rurale du Sénégal

2023· article· fr· W4389546455 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Deslauriers, Simona Bignami, Valérie Delaunay, John Sandberg

Bibliographic record

VenueSanté Publique · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsSolitudeHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to test a measure of loneliness and to document its determinants among rural men and women in Senegal. METHODS: Data from the Niakhar Social Networks and Health Project were used. The analysis sample was composed of 1261 residents aged 16 years and older. Analyses were stratified by gender. Associations between loneliness and its determinants (socio-demographic characteristics and level of social integration) were examined with multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Loneliness affects almost one in three people. Its prevalence is more significant for women. Multivariate analyses indicate that for both men and women, older age intensifies loneliness and recent migration experience protects against loneliness. Other factors act differently according to gender. Widowhood or divorce for men, and residential isolation for women, worsen the experience of loneliness. Social integration protects men against loneliness, but this relationship is not found for women. Finally, the effect of the level of social integration on loneliness varies with age. CONCLUSIONS: This study, which documents a phenomenon which is often neglected by misconceptions about social solidarities in these societies, suggests that loneliness is not linked to the same issues for men and women. For men, being socially integrated and being in a union are protective, whereas for women, poor social integration does not appear to be a clear source of loneliness, unlike residential isolation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSanté PubliqueSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207