MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416453952 · doi:10.17615/j4ec-h030

Alone together? A time use approach for examining socializing when travel is limited

2025· article· W4416453952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amber DeJohn, Michael J. Widener, Zhilin Liu, Xinlin Ma, Bochu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionContext (archaeology)Logistic regressionSocial isolationPandemicSocial distanceSocializationLatent class model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migrant populations access different social networks due to their cultural contexts and the locations of their social relationships. The COVID‐19 pandemic generated concern about social isolation among older adults. During Ontario's extended lockdown, we investigated the social behaviours of a generally sedentary older Chinese migrant community (n = 77) in the Greater Toronto Area. Using single‐day activity diaries, we grouped respondents using a k‐means clustering approach, which resulted in four categories of socializing characteristics. We then used ANOVA tests and multinomial logistic regression to understand the geographic contexts for these socializing behaviours. Findings reveal that this older migrant community was mostly socializing online, but a small group reported socializing in person. Living in a house, having better physical health, and having children living abroad was associated with a higher likelihood of socializing in person rather than online. Ultimately, it is important to understand the context within which older migrants socialize in order to support social connection and related health outcomes as they age.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueUNC Libraries→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→