Disentangling Vitality, Well-Being, and Quality of Life: A Conceptual Examination Emphasizing Their Similarities and Differences With Special Application in the Physical Activity Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given trends toward studying positive mental health in the behavioral sciences, the concepts of vitality, well-being, and quality of life (QoL) have received significant attention. Unfortunately, interpreting their empirical findings and applications is difficult given a tendency to use these terms synonymously and/or without clear apriori definitions. METHODS: This review presents an in-depth, critical examination of vitality, well-being, and QoL (especially health-related QoL) while paying particular attention to their similarities and differences. Given the proliferation of studies in the area of physical activity psychology, this review draws from a collection of knowledge in the physical activity domain to provide readers with concrete examples and to support arguments that are raised. RESULTS: The narrative content is divided into 3 sections with critical appraisals of each: definitions and meaning, theoretical views, and research, the latter of which is further subdivided into measurement and findings. Several parallels and discrepancies between the constructs are brought forward. CONCLUSIONS: Important arguments, among others, include the precision or specificity of the definition of vitality compared with well-being and QoL, and the emergence of a spectrum along which these constructs can be aligned with regards to the breadth of internal and external experiences they capture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".