MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406743411 · doi:10.54097/9pv5cd86

The Guiding Significance of the Happiness Concept of Ancient Greek Philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc.) for Modern Citizen Life

2025· article· en· W4406743411 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education and Humanities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLeadership, Courage, and Heroism Studies
Canadian institutionsASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSOCRATESHappinessPhilosophyAncient GreekLiteratureEpistemologyPsychologyArtSocial psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to explore the guiding significance of the ancient Greek philosopher's view of happiness to modern citizen life. This paper reveals the application value in modern society by deeply analyzing the happiness concept of ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. In terms of research methods, this paper adopts the combination of literature research and theoretical analysis, and deeply digs into the connotation and characteristics of the ancient Greek philosopher's view of happiness; Combining it with the actual situation of modern citizens' life, this paper discusses its application prospect in the fields of family education, school education and workplace life. The research shows that the happiness view of ancient Greek philosophers has far-reaching guiding significance for modern citizens' life. They emphasize the importance of spiritual satisfaction, moral cultivation and self-awareness, and provide valuable action guides for modern people to pursue a happy life. At the same time, these views on happiness show modern value in promoting personal happiness and social harmony, which is helpful to build a better and more harmonious modern society.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education and HumanitiesSame topicLeadership, Courage, and Heroism StudiesFrench-language works237,207