MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404941589 · doi:10.32397/tesea.vol5.n2.636

Exploring the determinants of happiness in Mexico: The interplay of social networks, psychological well-being, and socioeconomic factors

2024· article· en· W4404941589 on OpenAlexafffund
David Romero-Gómez, Eduardo Ahumada‐Tello, Richard Evans, Manuel Castañón–Puga

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions on Energy Systems and Engineering Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusHappinessPsychologyWell-beingSocial psychologyPsychological well-beingDevelopmental psychologySociologyDemographyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over recent years, there has been significant growth in research on happiness. It is essential to understand the factors that affect people's well-being to develop effective government policies that aim to improve the quality of life for citizens in Mexico. Unfortunately, this subject has been under-explored, especially in the Mexican context, with limited studies focusing on the topic. This study aims to comprehensively review the current literature on happiness, social networking, psychological factors, and socioeconomic factors to identify the critical variables associated with the happiness of Mexican citizens. Further, based on data from Mexico's 2021 National Survey of Self-reported Well-being (ENBIARE), we conducted a rigorous examination of this dataset to identify the principal factors that impact the well-being of Mexican citizens, employing both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions on Energy Systems and Engineering ApplicationsSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207