Le bien-être psychologique et ses concepts cousins, une analyse conceptuelle comparative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of psychological well-being acquired more importance in the field of health over the last decade. Ever since research paid more attention to "quality of life", psychological well-being became popular. The increasing interest in this concept entailed the development of many scales of measure. However, less importance has been given to the conceptual development of its construct, thus creating confusion between terms which at first appear similar: psychological well-being, subjective well-being, quality of life, spirit, satisfaction in life, happiness and mental health. The objective of this literature review (n:57) was to conduct a conceptual and comparative analysis (Morse et al., 1996) of psychological well-being with competitive concepts according to a comtemporary approach of analysis. Results show that these concepts are distinct and should not be used in an interchangeable way. They are distinct on various levels: type of measure (objective/subjective), type of evaluation (cognitive and affective), attributes, antecedents, consequences and influence of time (temporary/stable). Results of this review brings new light at the conceptual level for several terms. Graphic 1 illustrates its various positions thus favoring a better use of these terms in research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".