MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409968469 · doi:10.1038/s44184-025-00127-9

Identifying childhood correlates of adult purpose and meaning across 22 countries (Global Flourishing Study)

2025· article· en· W4409968469 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric S. Kim, Matt Bradshaw, R. Noah Padgett, Ying Chen, James L. Ritchie‐Dunham, Brendan W. Case, Byron R. Johnson, Tyler J. VanderWeele

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Mental Health Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersTempleton World Charity FoundationMichael Smith Health Research BCTempleton Religion TrustFetzer InstituteJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsFlourishingMeaning (existential)Developmental psychologyPsychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How might we cultivate a life imbued with purpose and meaning? Though common experience indicates purpose and meaning are inherently important, empirical evidence confirms they are also linked to improved health/well-being. However, childhood antecedents of purpose and meaning in adulthood are understudied. We analyzed nationally representative data from 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study (N = 202,898) and evaluated whether 11 aspects of a child's upbringing correlate with purpose and meaning in adulthood, and if these associations vary by country. Some childhood factors were associated with increased purpose and meaning, including: good health, good relationship with parents, economic stability, regular religious service attendance, being female, and older birth cohorts. Childhood factors associated with decreased purpose and meaning included: abuse, feeling alienated, poor health, economic hardship, and loss of a parent. These findings may inform the development of programs designed to foster purpose and meaning that are globally adaptable and locally nuanced.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Mental Health ResearchSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207