MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183727261 · doi:10.1037/cap0000033

Foundational frameworks of positive psychology: Mapping well-being orientations.

2015· article· en· W2183727261 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

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyCognitive psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific study of well-being has been strongly influenced by ideas from a number of related fields, including different areas of psychology. Two major philosophical traditions- hedonia and eudaimonia- underscore much of our current understanding of well-being, and are reflected across early and contemporary psychological theories of well-being. These traditions help delineate the various conceptualisations of well-being and its components; moreover, these traditions influence which research questions are asked, and where and how answers are sought. This has resulted in a plethora of categories and terms referring to similar, yet distinct, concepts such as: well-being, happiness, optimal or positive experiences, life satisfaction, and flourishing. Given the difficulties of distinguishing these concepts, this article aims to provide clarity by delineating the major orientations in positive psychology. We provide a road-map to theories and models of well-being found within positive psychology, thereby providing a starting a point from which an integrative framework of theories and models of well-being can be developed. To that end, also included in this review is a selection of well-being models that lie beyond the traditional frameworks. We conclude with a consideration of several criticisms that have been directed at positive psychology, and provide recommendations for future directions.Keywords: positive psychology, eudaimonia, hedonia, well-being, character strengthsResumeL'etude scientifique du bien-etre a ete fortement influencee par des idees empruntees a divers champs connexes, notamment a des domaines de la psychologie. Deux importantes traditions philosophiques, hedonia et eudaimonia, sous-tendent nombre des connaissances actuelles sur le bien-etre et trouvent echo dans les theories en psychologie sur cette notion, tant les toutes premieres que les contemporaines. Ces traditions aident a delimiter les diverses conceptualisations du bien-etre et de ses composants; en outre, elles influencent les questions de recherche qui sont posees ainsi que les methodes utilisees pour y repondre et les endroits ou chercher les reponses. Cette situation a donne lieu a une multitude de categories et de termes qui definissent des concepts semblables, mais neanmoins distincts : bien-etre, bonheur, experience optimale ou positive, satisfaction de vivre, epanouissement. Etant donne la difficulte de delimiter ces concepts, cet article vise a eclaircir les distinctions en determinant les principales orientations au sein de la psychologie positive. Il fournit un « plan » des theories et des modeles sur le bien-etre en psychologie positive, en vue d'etablir un point de depart pour l'etablissement d'un cadre integrateur. A cette fin, sont inclus dans la presente recherche des modeles sur le bien-etre qui ne correspondent pas aux cadres traditionnels. L'article se termine par une reflexion sur des critiques a l'egard de la psychologie positive ainsi que par des recommandations pour les recherches futures.Mots-cles : psychologie positive, eudaimonia, hedonia, bien-etre, force de caractere.Although positive psychology is considered a new field of inquiry, its origins can be traced to several philosophical traditions. These philosophical traditions provide a foundational framework within which positive psychology theories can be understood. Utilizing a philosophical framework, this review maps out numerous theories and models of well-being (see Figure 1). To provide as complete a guide as possible, a selection of well-being perspectives and models that stand tangential to the traditional philosophical frameworks are also considered.Utilitarian Philosophical TraditionUtilitarianism, promoted by the likes of Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), focuses on the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Within positive psychology, utilitarianism is most often manifested as maximizing happiness within specific groups of people. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.301 · 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