MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416713270 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2025.112331

Loneliness and well-being in finnish immigrants: A multimodal dataset from wearables and passive data collection

2025· article· en· W4416713270 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Auxier, Parisa Farzanehkari, Anna Axelin, Iman Azimi, Amir M. Rahmani, Pasi Liljeberg

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessData collectionWearable computerMental healthBeck Depression InventoryPhysical activityScale (ratio)Social connectedness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset was collected from first-generation immigrants between September 2022 and June 2023. Over a 28-day period, 39 participants aged 18 to 65, fluent in English and experiencing loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale score ≥ 28) contributed to the study. Data collection utilized Samsung Watch Active 2, Oura Ring, AWARE, and Centralive smartphone application. This dataset contains raw data from photoplethysmogram (PPG), inertial measurement unit (IMU) readings, air pressure, and processed data on heart rate, heart rate variability, sleep metrics (bedtime, stages, quality), physical activity (steps, active calories, activity types), and smartphone usage patterns (screen time, notifications, call and message logs). Participants also completed ecological momentary assessments (EMA) and weekly surveys, including instruments like the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Perceived Stress Scale, Sense of Coherence Scale, Social Connectedness Scale, Twente Engagement with E-Health Technologies questionnaire, and the UCLA Loneliness Scale. This dataset can be used to study the interplay between loneliness, mental well-being, and daily behaviors of immigrants in a real-world context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueData in BriefSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207