A Cross-cultural Study On the Association Between Societal Conditions and the Idealization of Happiness
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
Abstract Although most people aspire to be happy, the extent to which people pursue or idealize experiencing high levels of happiness does differ according to sociocultural context. This study was designed to elucidate which societal and cultural indicators are the most conducive to fostering high levels of happiness idealization. To accomplish this goal, we measured levels of happiness idealization for 11,170 participants residing in 43 different countries. We utilized machine learning (random forests approach) to examine how well an array of 18 different societal and cultural-level indicators were associated with country-level happiness idealization. We found robust and consistent evidence that greater cultural religiosity was associated with reduced idealization of happiness across four different types of happiness, including life satisfaction and interdependent happiness. These findings demonstrated that how much happiness is pursued varies considerably according to sociocultural context and highlights the role of cultural religiosity in shaping how people think about high levels of happiness.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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