A Review of the Tripartite Structure of Subjective Well-Being: Implications for Conceptualization, Operationalization, Analysis, and Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective well-being (SWB) comprises a global evaluation of life satisfaction and positive and negative affective reactions to one's life. Despite the apparent simplicity of this tripartite model, the structure of SWB remains in question. In the present review, the authors identify five prominent structural conceptualizations in which SWB is cast variously as three separate components, a hierarchical construct, a causal system, a composite, and as configurations of components. Supporting evidence for each of these models is reviewed, strengths and weaknesses are evaluated, and commonalities and discrepancies among approaches are described. The authors demonstrate how current ambiguities concerning the tripartite structure of SWB have fundamental implications for conceptualization, measurement, analysis, and synthesis. Given these ambiguities, it is premature to propose a definitive structure of SWB. Rather, the authors outline a research agenda comprising both short-term and longer-term steps toward resolving these foundational, yet largely unaddressed, issues concerning SWB.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".