MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998302662 · doi:10.1177/0958928719891339

Time and well-being, an institutional, comparative perspective: Is it time to explore the idea of a time policy?

2019· article· en· W2998302662 on OpenAlex
Lihi Lahat, Itai Sened

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of European Social Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime perspectiveWell-beingWelfarePerspective (graphical)European Social SurveySocial policyPositive economicsPublic economicsTime-use surveyEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyPoliticsSpace time

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between time and well-being as a social policy question. Although the research on time and well-being is extensive, few have dealt with them together from a comparative institutional perspective. Based on data from the third European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) of 2012, regarding 34 mostly European countries, in different welfare regimes, we explore two issues: (1) What are the effects of welfare regimes on the uses of time and subjective well-being? and (2) What are the effects of different uses of time on subjective well-being? We find that the institutional structure – the welfare regime – affects the way people use their time. Furthermore, the findings documented that uses of time have a direct effect on well-being when controlling for individual level as well as country-level variables. These findings may have important implications for policymaking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it