SOLITUDE LINKS WITH INDIVIDUAL AND RELATIONAL WELL-BEING: EVIDENCE FROM DYADIC DAILY LIFE ASSESSMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solitude, defined as physical aloneness or the absence of social interactions, has been associated with both positive and negative outcomes. Older adults spend a significant amount of their waking time by themselves (exacerbated during the pandemic), but they may be better equipped to regulate the negative emotions that are often linked with being alone. Additionally, solitude may provide a balance between social connectedness and autonomous needs. Using pandemic, end-of-day daily diary data across 10 days from 136 older Canadian adults and a close other of their choice (59% spouses, M = 66.49 years, SD = 13.26 range: 18-87 years, 88% White, 62% women), this project aims to examine associations of actor and partner solitude with relationship quality and daily affect. Multilevel models revealed that participants who reported more voluntary solitude experienced more daily positive affect and those who reported more negative solitude experienced both more negative affect and less positive affect at both daily and overall levels. We also found daily partner effects such that more voluntary solitude of the partner was associated with less actor negative affect and negative solitude of the partner being associated with less actor positive affect and more negative affect over and above actor effects. Finally, when partners reported more voluntary solitude, participants reported higher relationship support. Findings shed light on the benefits and drawbacks of how solitude is experienced in older adulthood, highlighting the influence social partners affect quality and relationship satisfaction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".