THE “EPIDEMIC” OF OLDER ADULT LONELINESS: PROBLEMS OF DIAGNOSTIC INTERVENTION AND CRITICAL SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Loneliness, more than a feeling, has become a new ‘geriatric giant’ (Freedman & Nicolle 2020) and epidemic health crisis for older adults, affecting their physical, cognitive and emotional well-being. During the COVID epidemic, the intersecting effects of loneliness and isolation (often blurred in the literature) have intensified, as varying public health measures restricted visiting, gathering, routines and activities. While technical interventions, such as digital communication technologies (DCTs), tele-health meetings, online games, robotic pet companions and simulated presence therapy (SPT) are offered as beneficial aids, even where available or co-designed they tend to individualize and universalize loneliness. Professional, recreational and prescriptive interventions can also disregard the structural relations and socio-material environments that configure everyday lonely-making experiences over time. For both residential and community dwelling older adults, such experiences include lack of affordable housing, care-giver burden and insufficient community resources and planning. This presentation, drawing upon data and examples from senior health policy, loneliness surveys, national reports and qualitative research, reflects on these troubling matters in their complexity and heterogeneity. Conclusions explore the making of an ageist emotional economy that depicts and neglects older adults as inevitably lonely, while advocating for their rights to age in safe, healthy and socially connective ways.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it