The Nature and the Conditions of Human Autonomy and Flourishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human beings have fundamental psychological propensities toward growth, integrity, and wellness. Yet, historically, many approaches to motivation have ignored these inner propensities, focusing instead on how external contingencies shape expectancies and behaviors. This chapter reviews recent work in self-determination theory, an organismic approach in which people’s intrinsic, growth-oriented propensities are a central focus. Self-determination theory argues that people have basic psychological needs to experience competence, autonomy, and relatedness to others. Satisfaction of these basic needs facilitates autonomous motivation and wellness, whereas the frustration of these needs contributes to ill-being and is associated with lower quality, and often highly controlled, forms of motivation. Autonomous and controlled forms of motivation differ in their antecedents, neurological underpinnings, and outcomes. Although most of the experimentation and evidence base of self-determination theory has focused on proximal relationships (e.g., families, dyads, classrooms, teams, or workgroups), recent research is extending self-determination theory to address pervasive contexts (e.g., cultural or economic systems) and how they both directly and indirectly affect need satisfaction and motivation, thereby impacting people’s development and wellness. Pervasive contexts also influence people’s aspirational horizons and the life goals they pursue, further influencing both individual and community wellness. More need-supportive contexts conduce to more authentic living and intrinsic aspirations, which in turn promote more prosocial attitudes and actions and greater personal and societal wellness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".