College students’ experiences of hedonia and eudaimonia in their everyday activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experiences of hedonia (i.e., seeking pleasure) and eudaimonia (i.e., actualizing human potential in pursuit of meaningful goals) are central to the study of human well-being. PURPOSE: This study sought to examine levels of hedonia (pleasure) and eudaimonia (productivity) in a convenience sample of college (university) students' ( n = 264) daily activities, controlling for levels of perceived stress. METHOD: Data were gathered using a 24-hr time-use recall diary designed to assess objective and subjective information about everyday activities. Descriptions of self-reported everyday activities were coded into 20 activity types. FINDINGS: Activities reported high in pleasure were eating, listening to music/watching movies, and exercise. Activities reported as high in productivity were studying and working. Activities reported as high in both pleasure and productivity were reported less frequently and often had a recognizable outcome or provided social connection. IMPLICATIONS: Developing a greater understanding of how college students experience their daily activities could strengthen programs designed to enable students to manage stress and sustain their well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".