MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030592487 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv014

Trends in life satisfaction in European and North-American adolescents from 2002 to 2010 in over 30 countries

2015· article· en· W2030592487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Franco Cavallo, Paola Dalmasso, Veronika Ottová-Jordan, Fiona Brooks, Joanna Mazur, Raili Välimaa, Inese Gobiņa, Margarida Gaspar de Matos, Ulrike Raven-Sieberer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i BergenUniversity of St Andrews
KeywordsDemographyLife satisfactionFeelingGeographyPsychologyOddsEu countriesAge groupsMedicineEuropean unionSociologySocial psychologyLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Life satisfaction (LS) is an indicator which is widely used for assessing the perception of a child's feeling about his life. METHODS: LS is assessed in Health Behaviour in School-aged Children via the Cantril ladder with 10 steps indicating the worst and best possible life. This range of values (0-10) was dichotomized into 'low' (0-5) vs. 'high' (6-10). Countries, age groups and genders were compared based on the odds ratio (OR) of declaring a higher LS in 2010 with respect to 2002. RESULTS: Analyzing the difference between 2002 and 2010, six countries from Western Europe show decreasing LS: Austria, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland and Greenland. In contrast, a group of Eastern European Countries, that is, Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Russia and Ukraine, show a significant increase in LS. Data on gender and age differences confirm the lower rating of LS in girls and a decreasing rating with age. CONCLUSION: The LS scale appears to be a tool capable of discriminating the level of wellbeing of adolescent population among countries.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations70
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207