Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is almost universal consensus regarding the high importance and desirability of positive well‐being in children. Despite this consensus, the study of children has traditionally focused on their ill‐being (e.g., anxiety, depression, and loneliness) and not on their well‐being (e.g., happiness, life satisfaction, and thriving). This entry reviews measures of the components of children's well‐being using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods and discusses studies that use these methods to identify the correlates of well‐being in children throughout the world. Children with high positive well‐being tend to have high‐quality social relationships; to display a social, outgoing temperament relatively free of anxiety and shyness; and to report high levels of spirituality. Current research, summarized in this entry, is developing and testing strategies to enhance children's positive well‐being in enduring ways, including strategies that focus on giving and exercises in mindfulness. These strategies need to focus on individual differences and not assume that a single approach will be effective in enhancing the well‐being of all children across all cultures.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".