One (financial well-being) model fits all
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multidimensional model of emerging adults’ subjective financial well-being was proposed (Sorgente and Lanz, Int Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(5), 466–478 2019). The authors also developed a 5-factor scale (the Multidimensional Subjective Financial Well-being Scale, MSFWBS) intending to measure this construct in the European context. To date, data using this instrument have been collected in nine countries: Austria, Canada, Finland, India, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Turkey. In the current study, data from these countries were analysed to test the validity of this model internationally. In particular, using an international sample of 4,475 emerging adults, we collected the following kinds of validity evidence for the MSFWBS: score structure, reliability, generalizability, convergent, and criterion-related evidence. Findings suggest that the MSFWBS (1) yields valid and reliable scores, and (2) works well in individualistic and economically developed countries, producing comparable scores. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".