The Incremental Validity of Narrative Identity in Predicting Well-Being
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
Grounded in four theoretical positions-structural, cognitive, phenomenological, and ethical-the present review demonstrates the empirical evidence for the incremental validity of narrative identity as a cross-sectional indicator and prospective predictor of well-being, compared with other individual difference and situational variables. In doing so, we develop an organizational framework of four categories of narrative variables: (a) motivational themes, (b) affective themes, (c) themes of integrative meaning, and (d) structural elements. Using this framework, we detail empirical evidence supporting the incremental association between narrative identity and well-being, a case that is strongest for motivational, affective, and integrative meaning themes. These categories of themes serve as vital complimentary correlates and predictors of well-being, alongside commonly assessed variables such as dispositional personality traits. We then use the theoretically grounded review of the empirical literature to develop concrete areas of future research for the field.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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