MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284893101 · doi:10.36096/brss.v4i1.347

What does gross national happiness really measure? An immersive observation in Lamshey, Bhutan

2022· article· en· W4284893101 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Keiff

Bibliographic record

VenueBussecon Review of Social Sciences (2687-2285) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessGross domestic productGross national incomeDimension (graph theory)PsychologySocioeconomicsEconomic growthEconomicsSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the Gross National Happiness indicator and the actual lifestyle of the people of Bhutan. Gross National Happiness is a macroeconomic indicator calculated in Bhutan. It was constructed in contrast to the Gross Domestic Product. Gross National Happiness is designed to guide the country's public policies. Using visual methods in anthropology, this study proposes an immersion in Lamshey, a village in Bhutan. The daily life of the inhabitants is then observed and analyzed with the way gross national happiness is measured. The sociology of quantification provides a framework for analysis that reveals important and new implications. Indeed, to bring together the experience of happiness as it is lived by the Bhutanese, it will be appropriate to distinguish three complementary "Gross National Happiness", according to whether it is measured, lived, or in its ethical dimension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBussecon Review of Social Sciences (2687-2285)Same topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207