THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE OF HAPPINESS: ESSENTIAL RESOURCES FOR A HAPPY FAMILY
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
It is normal for people to feel positive about the quality of their lives, despite the presence of challenges. Of special interest here are the challenges of caring for a child or a disabled family member. How do the adults living within such families maintain a positive self-view? Answering this question requires an understanding of subjective well-being as it applies to each individual family member and of the management system that strives to keep each person feeling positive. This paper describes various psychological components of this homeostatic management system, together with a consideration of the most useful resources to support homeostasis. Key resources have been identified by using the Personal Wellbeing Index, a seven-item scale measuring subjective well-being (mood happiness). Over many studies, researchers have found considerable agreement that three kinds of resources — “the Golden Triangle” — are consistently more relevant to subjective well-being than the others. These are feelings of satisfaction with income, relationships, and life purpose. The implications for interventions that offer support to families in need are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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