How Institutional Evaluation Bridges Uncertainty and Happiness: A Study of Young Chinese People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty triggers negative psychological responses, while positive institutional evaluations elevate the sense of control in individuals and satisfy their need for structure and order. Data from the 2015 Chinese Social Survey (CSS) (N = 4,605) demonstrated that objective uncertainty negatively predicted the happiness of young people (aged 18–45 years). However, this negative relationship was attenuated among those who evaluated the institutional system (e.g., social security, local government effectiveness, and trust in government) positively; in other words, positive institutional evaluation may have protected people's happiness from the threat of uncertainty. In addition, participants from different age groups evaluated the institutional system differently. The first generation born after the Chinese economic reform, which includes young people born in the 1980s (aged 26–35 years), had unique experiences compared to the preceding (aged 36–45 years, born in the 1970s) and succeeding (aged 18–25 years, born in the 1990s) generations. Among the three age groups, young people born in the 1980s held the least positive evaluation of the institutional system. The institutional evaluation also showed the weakest moderating effect on this group's happiness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".