MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414309014 · doi:10.5590/jsbhs.2025.19.1753

Book Review of The Art and Science of Connection by Kasley Killam

2025· article· en· W4414309014 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Harit Agroia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Behavioral and Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKillam TrustsStrong
KeywordsMental healthKey (lock)Social determinants of healthSocial lifeQuality (philosophy)Component (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Art and Science of Social Connection by Kasley Killam presents a case for better understanding individual health by ensuring that the social aspect is considered as a significant component of health in addition to the physical and mental aspects. Killam states that social health consists of an individual’s sense of belonging, the strength of relationships, and meaningful connections. By drawing from years of evidence building, Killam argues that social health is fundamental for one to truly flourish and prosper in their life as people who have stronger social health are shown to have higher quality of life, emotional resilience, and longevity. The Art and Science of Connection is an award-winning, 288-page book that takes the reader through not only understanding social health but also learning how to apply a framework that offers practical strategies to strengthen one’s own social health. As part of discussing key concepts, Killam, an internationally recognized expert in social health, redefines what it means to be healthy, offers a critical lens in examining the types of relationships people may have, including how each type may affect social health differently, argues for making social health a priority by being consistent in strengthening social muscles, and unveils ways that individuals can flourish together by joining a growing movement in social health. The aim of this review was to spotlight Killam’s book as a thoughtful approach for thinking about ways through which everyone can reach optimal health by connecting with others and strengthening their relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social Behavioral and Health SciencesSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207