Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between happiness and religious beliefs. THE RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND METHODS: The research problem is contained in the question: What is the relationship between happiness and religious beliefs in the light of the theoretical- cognitive analysis? The literature on the subject was analyzed. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The analysis of the literature relevant to the subject began with selected approaches to happiness, among others in relation to positive psychology. Next, the researcher referred to category – religious beliefs, and finally, the relationship between two the analyzed categories was examined. The process concluded with forensic attention that was focused on the conclusions resulting from this analysis. RESEARCH RESULTS: Happiness, determined by many factors, including essentially a person’s personality and the events that occur in his /her life, is linked to the religious beliefs. Religious people tend to be happy more than those without beliefs. Thus, it can be implied that there is a correlation between the categories: religious beliefs and happiness. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The conducted analysis of the research subject, eliciting aspects of positive psychology such as happiness, the sense of meaning in life, indicated an important factor shaping positive attitudes towards the life trajectory, which are religious beliefs. This issue should be dealt with in the future in the context of shaping a mature human personality, which is undoubtedly influenced by religious beliefs and their quality considered in the category of the quality of spiritual life, and the quality of life, in general.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".