Correlation of meaningfulness of life to psychological time in personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2014 Canadian Center of Science and Education. The article considers the issue of correlation between the meaning of life and psychological time of a personality, while the temporal distribution of the meaningful constituents in the human life is a very important aspect of the meaning of life. The specific issue concerning the ratio of the meaning of life's quantitative aspect manifested by means of its meaningfulness' level to some peculiar characteristics of the personality's psychological time was raised within the frames of the denoted problem. The aim of the present empirical research was to reveal the above mentioned correlation. The level of the meaningfulness of life was determined applying the Life-Purpose Orientations Questionnaire (LPO) that consists of five factors: goals in life, emotional intensity of life, self-actualization satisfaction, life locus of control, Ego locus of control. The parameters of the psychological time were estimated using the Estimation of Five-Year Intervals Method (EFI) that reveals the life way by means of its perceived efficiency's temporal dynamics. The current research surveyed the postgraduate students of the Kazan Federal University (n=140). The obtained findings reported that the level of the meaningfulness of life and such a parameter of the personality's psychological time, as a developmental age, demonstrate no interconnections: the surveyed, who are psychologically either younger, or older than their chronological age is, equally estimate their life as meaningful. At that, quantitative data on the meaningfulness of life are closely interconnected to other characteristics estimated by means of the EFI method to both the actualization and emotional intensity of life. The peculiarities of interconnections between the criteria of the meaningfulness of life and parameters of actualization and general emotional intensity of life for men and women were also detected. The men better evaluate the emotional intensity of both the past and future of their life at higher level of the meaningfulness of life. The women with the higher level of the meaningfulness of life better estimate its eventual intensity in the future, while they evaluate their past as poorer for events.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".