A systems perspective on human flourishing: Exploring cross-country similarities and differences of a multisystemic flourishing network
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
A systems perspective explains dynamics of human flourishing based on the relations between its constituents. Using cross-sectional data from emerging adults (ages 18–29) in 10 countries (N = 7221), this study explored the interrelatedness among constituents of flourishing – happiness & satisfaction with life, mental & physical health, meaning & purpose, character & virtue, close social relationships, and financial & material stability – within and across countries. Each country's sample was characterized by a unique flourishing network, although there were similarities. Except for financial & material stability, all constituents were positively related across samples. Financial & material stability showed the highest cross-country heterogeneity in its relations. Happiness & satisfaction with life and meaning & purpose showed the strongest interrelations. A higher level of one constituent was associated with lower network connectivity. This systems perspective extends existing knowledge about the conceptualization of flourishing and how people can be supported to achieve and maintain complete well-being.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it