Adverse changes in close social ties in aging women and men: A population-based longitudinal study of the CLSA (2011–2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Close social ties are important for health but these can decline as people age. Moreover, losses of close social ties may be worse for women, older age and low socioeconomic groups. We characterized alterations in both marital status or living arrangement over 6 years by gender, and assessed patterns by age, country of origin, geographic location, education, wealth, and household income. We used three waves of Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging data on 25,327 adults (45-85 years at baseline) to construct transition variables and multinomial logistic regressions with post-estimated predicted probabilities. Close social ties were stable over time, with most Canadians remaining partnered (77 % of men and 62 % of women) or co-living (82 % of men and 72 % of women). Adverse close social ties over time were gendered and socially patterned, with women 75+ years and of low socioeconomic status (SES) having the greatest risks. Becoming widowed or remaining non-partnered was relatively more likely for women with oldest age (RRR range: 6.08-15.64) or with low SES (RRRs: 2.29-47.06), and for men with oldest age (RRRs: 1.07-8.77) or low SES (RRRs: 2.03-31.72). Becoming or remaining lone-living was relatively more likely for women of oldest age (RRRs: 5.57-8.72) or low SES (RRRs: 2.16-65.78) and also for men of oldest aged (RRRs: 2.33-2.57) or low SES (RRRs: 2.08-49.62). Tailored healthy aging strategies to foster close social connections of women or men in older and low SES groups seems warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".