The Correlation of Importance and Attainability Disparity in the Personality Value System with the Meaningfulness of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the subject is set by the contradiction existing in science concerning the understanding of psychological sense of the disparity between the importance of value and the assessment of its realization in life: in one case it is understood as sense-making, in another—as conflicting or meaning semantic vacuum. This issue was regarded in the empirical research via the identification in what way the difference of values importance and attainability parameters is connected with the level of life meaningfulness on the sample of people aged from 15 to 40 years old. The results suggested that the total difference of these parameters in the personality value system is not associated with the level of life meaningfulness, and thus, the disparity may provide values with additional incentive potential, and conflict sense, and be neutral as well. There have been found few links of life meaningfulness with the disparity of importance and attainability of some values that highlights spheres of age-related or situational tasks for a human to solve. The article proceedings may be useful from their theoretical point of view to specify patterns concerning valuable and meaning regulation of life, from practical point of view they may help to understand the complex role of values importance and attainability disparity in person’s psychological wellbeing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".