Determinants of life satisfaction in Canada: A causal modeling approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research studies on Life Satisfaction/Subjective Wellbeing (SWB) have focused on one main determinant and a variety of social demographic variables to delineate the determinants of life satisfaction. However, very few research studies examine life satisfaction from a holistic approach. The aim of this study was to utilize a holistic approach to construct a causal model and identify major determinants of life satisfaction. This study utilized data from the General Social Survey, with a sample size of 19,597. Several multiple regression models were run sequentially to estimate standardized path coefficients for the causal model. Overall, above average satisfaction with life was reported by Canadian respondents. Respondents who were female, younger, married, from high socioeconomic status background, born in Canada, very religious, and demonstrated high level of neighborhood interaction had greater satisfaction with life. Similarly, respondents had greater life satisfaction if they had better health, social contact, leisure activities, more time with family and friends, more enjoyment with volunteer activities, and a greater sense of belonging to the community. Our results suggest that a holistic approach is necessary for understanding the causal process of life satisfaction. A significant number of causal connections contradict some of the findings in literature today. We have provided some possible explanations for these anomalies and policy implications.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".