Editorial: Causes and consequences of solitude in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial on the Research TopicCauses and consequences of solitude in children and adolescents Solitude has been conceptualized as physical or perceived separation from others or a state of no social interaction (see McVarnock et al.).Historical perspectives have highlighted both the benefits and costs of solitude for children and adolescents.On the one hand, spending time alone is believed to promote important developmental skills, such as self-regulation and the attainment of autonomy.On the other hand, there is a prevalent concern that excessive time alone will deprive children and adolescents of the valuable and unique opportunities and benefits that come with peer interactions.This paradox illustrates the complex nature of solitude.Nine articles in the Research Topic of "Causes and Consequences of Solitude in Children and Adolescents" clarify a broad range of viewpoints and offer substantial empirical evidence to the following themes.The constructs and pathways reviewed or empirically examined in this Research Topic are presented in Figure 1. Conceptualization, assessment, and implications of the heterogeneous nature of solitudeMcVarnock et al. reviewed the operational definition and measurement of solitude in psychological studies of children, adolescents, and emerging adults since the year 2000.The authors identified 19 empirical studies which measured "spending time alone" using three main approaches: experiments, retrospective reports and experience sampling measures.The majority of these studies focused on merging adults, with a few focused on adolescents and only one examining solitude in children.The considerable variation within measurement approaches, including the operational definitions of "solitude" and the outcomes assessed, may impact study findings.Despite the variation, overall solitude was associated with negative outcomes.However, implications of solitude vary depending on
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.011 |
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".