THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RELIGIOUS SERVICE ATTENDANCE, SPIRITUALITY, LONELINESS, AND SOCIAL ISOLATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of our study is to determine if religious service attendance and spirituality had an association with loneliness and social isolation among older adults. We used the Health and Retirement Study to address our research objective. Religious service attendance was measured dichotomously (no religious service attendance vs. attending religious services at least once a year). Spirituality was measured by Fetzer Institute 4-item Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality. Loneliness and social isolation were operationalized using the UCLA 3-item loneliness scale and by a social network index, respectively. Covariates included age, gender, race, income, employment status, and education. We used multivariable linear regression to examine the relationships between religious service attendance, spirituality, loneliness, and social isolation. We found respondents who did not attend religious services were more likely to be socially isolated. Additionally, spirituality did not have a significant association with social isolation. Respondents who did not attend religious services had significantly greater loneliness in comparison to those who did attend religious services. Furthermore, respondents with higher spirituality scores had lower loneliness scores. We found religious service attendance had an association with social isolation only, while both attendance and spirituality had an association with loneliness among older adults; therefore, improving access to religious institutions and enhancing one’s spirituality may serve as important factors for mitigating social isolation and loneliness among older adults.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".