Flourishing in the now: Initial validation of a present-eudaimonic time perspective scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A positive focus on the present, the only time zone which we experience directly and permanently, is at least as relevant as perspectives on the past and future in a balanced time perspective and its relation to wellbeing. Yet, few instruments examining a positive present time perspective exist. Two present-directed concepts, mindfulness and flow, that are intrinsically linked to mental wellbeing were analyzed and used to formulate a present-eudaimonic scale that complements the past and future scales of the balanced time perspective scale. The present study addresses the psychometric properties of the present-eudaimonic scale and the modified balanced time perspective scale. Method 131 participants filled out the present-eudaimonic scale, the balanced time perspective scale, the Zimbardo time perspective inventory, the five facet mindfulness questionnaire – short form, the Swedish flow proneness questionnaire and the mental health continuum – short form. Balanced time perspective was operationalized using the deviation from a balanced time perspective coefficient. Results The present-eudaimonic scale showed good psychometric properties including internal consistency, factor structure, and convergent validity. The present-eudaimonic scale explained an additional eleven percent of variance in mental health beyond the other time perspective scales. Balanced time perspective as measured with the modified balanced time perspective scale correlated significantly stronger with mental health than balanced time perspective measured with the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Conclusions The present-eudaimonic scale fills a gap in the assessment of time perspective and the modified balanced time perspective scale is a promising way to study balanced time perspective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".