On the Relation between Performance and Life Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Passion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dualistic model of passion (Vallerand, 2010 Vallerand, R. J. 2010. “On passion for life activities: The dualistic model of passion”. In Advances in experimental social psychology, Edited by: Zanna, M. P. Vol. 42, 97–193. New York, NY: Academic Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) regards passion as a strong inclination toward a self-defining activity that one loves, values, and in which one invests a substantial amount of time and energy. The model proposes two distinct types of passion, harmonious and obsessive, that predict adaptive and less adaptive outcomes, respectively. It was hypothesized that individuals with an obsessive passion would have their life satisfaction dependent on their performance. This is so because obsessive passion leads the activity to take a disproportionate place in one's life. On the other hand, this should not be the case for harmonious passion. Results of Study 1 (N = 63) revealed that the more professional painters had an obsessive passion toward their art, the more they experienced increases in life satisfaction following a success. On the other hand, accentuated decreases in life satisfaction were experienced following a failure. In contrast, harmonious passion was unrelated to this phenomenon. Study 2 was conducted with a sample of hockey fans (N = 77) who reported their life satisfaction the day after each game of a 2009 National Hockey League playoff series. Results using hierarchical linear modeling analyses replicated findings from Study 1.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it