Wealth and Well-Being, Economic Growth, and Integral Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay tackles a bimillenary problem in psychology, ethics, economics, and political philosophy: that of the relations between wealth and well-being. What are they, and should we live for pleasure, or rather seek to live a full and useful life? This is the ancient dilemma between hedonism, the cult of pleasure, and eudemonism, the search for a good life. Economists, almost without exception, have opted for hedonism, but they have not found out what percentage of the goods that ordinary people want are not merchandises. This gap is currently being filled by psychologists, sociologists, socioeconomists, and other workers in the new "science of happiness". Their main finding, that happiness is not for sale, might surprise the orthodox economists. On the social level, the former problem, concerning individuals, gets translated into the question of national development: what kind of development should we seek, and for whom? In particular, should economic growth be prioritized, or should we promote the simultaneous development of all sectors of society, including the political and cultural? In either case, should development benefit the chosen few or everybody? And should it enhance the well-being of the individual and make that of her offspring possible? This problem, of course, lies at the intersection of three sciences--psychology, economics, and political science--and two chapters of philosophy--ethics and political philosophy. Consequently, anyone daring to propose original solutions to the problem in question will risk being criticized by experts distributed among these five fields, who are not used to talking to one another.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".