Authenticity as a eudaimonic construct: The relationships among authenticity, values, and valence
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
The construct of authenticity is thought of as an expression of individuality and eudaimonic well-being. Yet, previous research has related state authenticity more to positive affect and pleasant behavior. We examine the extent to which feeling authentic is a reflection of personally held standards of worth (values) and authenticity’s relationship with affective states. We also examine whether feelings of authenticity are facilitated by dispositional authenticity. Study 1 had participants debate benevolent behavior (N = 199). In study two (N = 124) and three (N = 146), participants described memories where they acted in concordance or against their values, in both pleasant and unpleasant contexts. We found a relationship between acting in accordance with one’s values and experiencing authenticity, thus demonstrating that authenticity is a form of eudaimonic well-being, which is closely related to, but distinct from, affective states. We found less consistent associations between dispositional authenticity and momentary authentic feelings.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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