Lay people expect social modernization will bring more societal well-being: the relation between expected societal development, communion, agency and subjective well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that lay people see modernization as a threat to social fabric because it will make people less warm and moral. The purpose of this paper is to describe lay people's understanding of the effects of different types of modernization. Specifically, we checked how social, economic, technological and conventional development are expected to influence communion, agency and well-being in the future society. METHODS: We conducted three cross-sectional studies using online surveys. Prolific participant pool users over 18 years of age that held Canadian citizenship and resided in Canada were eligible to take part in the study in exchange for financial compensation. T-tests and linear regression analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical package. RESULTS: Participants expected that people in future society will have lower well-being than today. Technological modernization was expected to decrease communion and well-being but increase agency in the future, while social modernization was expected to strengthen societal communion, agency and well-being. CONCLUSION: Lay people believe that different types of modernization will have different effects on society. Whereas technological progress is viewed ambivalently, social development is seen as uniformly positive for well-being of society. In order to counter pessimism about the future, policy makers should focus on social development while striving to mitigate negative social aspects of technological advancements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".