Community Connection and Loneliness in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how loneliness relates to community size, participation and attitudes. We conducted two studies using three large-scale Canadian datasets (total N = 20,071). Community size was determined by census postal code areas, and loneliness, community participation and attitudes were evaluated by self-report ratings. In each cross-sectional study, we use correlations, multiple regression and one-way ANOVA analyses to evaluate the relationship of loneliness to urban-rural communities, group participation and ratings of connection and belongingness. In both studies, lower loneliness was predicted by higher feelings of connection in one's community. People who participated in groups were also less lonely, but the relationship was weak. Only Study 2 results showed a pattern of relationship between loneliness and urban/rural categories; participants living in urban communities identified higher loneliness. Attitudes about community connection are important predictors of loneliness where more physical variables of participation and size have a much smaller relationship. Measurement limitations and community characteristics are discussed.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".