EVERYDAY SOLITUDE, TIME SAVORING, WELL-BEING, AND HEALTH IN OLDER ADULTHOOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the significance of social relationships, solitude (being alone and without social interaction) forms an essential part of older adults’ lives. The current study aimed to examine the role of time savouring (i.e., the ability to attend to positive experiences and up-regulate positive feelings) for mitigating associations of solitude with indicators of negative well-being and health in old age. For this purpose, a sample of 108 older adults aged 65–92 years took part in a daily diary study. Over 14 days, participants reported daily amount of time spent in solitude, extent of time savouring, levels of depressive mood, and somatic symptoms in an end-of-day diary. Data were analysed using multi-level models controlling for study day, age, gender, education, and living alone. Participants reported higher depressive mood but not more somatic symptoms on days on which they spent more time in solitude than usual. On days on which participants indicated higher time savouring than usual, they reported lower depressive mood and lower levels of somatic symptoms. Importantly, associations of solitude with depressive mood and somatic symptoms were weaker on days with increased time savouring. There were no person-level associations between solitude or time savouring with depressive mood or somatic symptoms. The study’s findings highlight the importance of everyday time savouring in attenuating negative health-related aspects of solitude in older adults. Preserving and promoting time savouring in older adulthood may thus promote health and well-being in this age group.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".