The Pursuit of Happiness: The Effect of Social Involvement on Life Satisfaction in Canada
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
A popular area of discussion within “happiness studies” across disciplines is the question of whether money can buy happiness or not. Contradictory findings have encouraged an ongoing debate and keep the topic aflame among sociologists, economists, and psychologists. Recently, sociologists have branched out to consider other social factors that may bear a closer relationship to a person’s level of happiness: marital status, religiosity, work and employment, to name a few. Using quantitative methods to analyze data from the 2005-2006 World Values Survey, this paper shows that social involvement and civic participation can promote happiness among Canadians. Statistical controls rule out potential confounding variables, which are based off of past literature on happiness studies. The results suggest that social involvement does indeed promote happiness among Canadians; however, there are multiple factors which increase or decrease one’s likelihood of being socially involved. Three major influencers were identified: affluence, education and religiosity.
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 | 0.003 | 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