Childhood Neglect and Loneliness: The Unique Roles of Parental Figure and Child Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a well-supported link between experiences of childhood neglect and levels of loneliness in adulthood, with emotional neglect from caregivers being predictive of loneliness. However, current research has yet to explore additional, sex-linked factors that influence this relationship. This study investigates the impact of different neglect types on loneliness, with a focus on the parental figure involved and the child's sex. It was hypothesized that men who experienced emotional neglect from their fathers would score higher in loneliness compared to other parent-child combinations. The findings showed no significant differences in father-son relationships within the context of emotional neglect. However, there was a significant difference in father-son relationships in the context of supervision neglect and loneliness outcomes, relative to all other parent combinations. Consistent with existing research, emotional neglect emerged as the strongest predictor of loneliness. Additionally, sex differences were observed, with women experiencing greater levels of loneliness stemming from neglect compared to men. These findings help address the knowledge gap present in childhood neglect research, with the goal of understanding the long-term consequences of adverse childhood experiences.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".