MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153013141 · doi:10.1177/1745691610375561

Culture and Well-Being

2010· review· en· W2153013141 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Psychological Science · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is a good society? Philosophers from Plato to Bentham have argued that a good society is a happy society-namely, a society in which most citizens are happy and free from fear. Since the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith in 1776, most economists have implicitly assumed that a happy society is a materially wealthy society. Thus, gross national product and related indices became the most popular indicators of the well-being of nations from the 1950s to date. Recently, however, prominent economists as well as political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists have shown that a happy society is not only a materially wealthy society but also a society in which citizens can trust one another, have a sense of freedom, and have close social relationships. The inquiry into the psychological wealth of nations, or the subjective well-being of nations, helps answer a fundamental question in philosophy and social sciences for millennia: "What is a good society?"

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.391 · 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