Measuring meaning in life by combining philosophical and psychological distinctions: Psychometric properties of the Comprehensive Measure of Meaning
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
Meaning, a fundamental component of human well-being, can be categorized into seven interrelated subdomains, as our study provides evidence for. These categories nest within a previously established tripartite classification of meaning in life (e.g. coherence, significance, and direction/purpose). We present the psychological and philosophical distinctions that led to the development of the Comprehensive Measure of Meaning (CMM). We provide empirical evidence for the reliability of scores and validity of the CMM using a longitudinal sample of college students (N = 4058) and a large, diverse sample from a Latin American financial institution (N = 8794). The measurement of individuals’ perception of their meaning in life is internally consistent, and we present results based on an innovative method to explore conceptual distinctions. Finally, we provide recommendations on using the CMM as a measure of individuals’ perceptions of their meaning in life and avenues for potentially beneficial modifications researchers might consider based on their intended uses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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