Bringing coherence to positive psychology: Faith in humanity
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
Currently, positive psychology is experiencing problems with coherence, and the field could benefit from more organizing concepts linking disparate findings and researchers within the field. This incoherence can be seen in several domains. At a conceptual level, the field has produced an abundance of important studies clarifying predictors of well-being, but no consistent theory has emerged explaining why these factors predict well-being. In addition, disunity has emerged between first wave positive psychologists and second wave positive psychologists, and also between practitioners and researchers. The field could benefit from more unifying constructs that explain links between constructs and practices within positive psychology. Faith in humanity (FIH) has potential as a unifying construct. FIH is like a forgotten sibling whose important story is mentioned rarely and mainly obliquely. In fact, this construct, though seldom mentioned, already implicitly pervades much of positive psychology, and the field would benefit by explicitly recognizing this fact.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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