Skip to content
See the canonical statement of this PQ, its subquestions, and the specific operationalized questions for evaluators to consider at — under ‘specific wellbeing PQs”.
[We may add some general tips here]
Wellbeing PQ: Request to evaluators
Adapting this from requests for other PQs [May need some adjustment
1. Consider the PQ framing and background
State your initial beliefs about the Pivotal Questions.
Express these beliefs in and in Metaculus (link to be provided), where available. Share your Metaculus ID in the form. Provide a brief discussion of the reasoning behind your stated beliefs.
We want you to focus on the ‘focal questions’:
Which combination of (a) wellbeing-relevant data and self-reports (e.g., happiness, life-satisfaction surveys) and (b) metric based on this data (e.g., linear WELLBY units, standard deviation movements, adjustments for scale use) would be “best*” for making funding choices between interventions whose impacts may include mental health, physical health, and consumption outcomes.
and also [tbd]
Please also respond to the other questions that we suggested would be appropriate for your expertise (contact the Evaluation Manager or if you’re in doubt which ones).
2. Consider and ‘rank’ papers/projects for PQ usefulness
Consider the relevant papers and syntheses for the PQ (”Wellbeing...” and “WELLBY”)
. [Will import and link it below to make it easier for evaluators] Go to and use the filter bars to choose the relevant PQ and methods. You may have been asked to focus on a subset of these only, if so please ignore the others. Please consider any specific guidance from the evaluation manager.
You don’t have to read each in full. Use your best judgment; feel free to use the NotebookLM ( [link]) to extract summaries and query key features of each. You can use other LLM tools if you wish, but please be transparent about your use and do not rely on them for final judgments. (See our initially proposed AI use policy
.) If there’s a paper not on this list that you know is particularly relevant to the pivotal question, please let us know immediately.
[Step 2 form at (built for the cultured meat question_ — may need adjustment for the wellbeing PQs,
3. Evaluate one paper/project, or a small subset of these carefully
For the paper (or few papers) you find most credible and useful, do a careful evaluation of this work, largely following The Unjournal’s (applied stream) but focusing on the implications for the Pivotal Question.
Once you've chosen the paper/papers you want to evaluate, please let us know at contact@unjournal.org, and we'll potentially provide some further specific guidance. (We'll try to respond within 1-2 working days.)
The evaluation should follow The Unjournal's but with a focus on the paper’s implications for the Pivotal Question.
The below can guide you through the evaluation process, but you are also welcome to complete an evaluation in a different format, like a Google Doc. If you choose to do so, you can link your evaluation in the survey below or share it with us in your preferred way.
If you decide to evaluate more than one paper, you can submit one form for each paper or submit the full set of evaluations in a Google Doc, as you prefer.
4. State and justify your (revised) beliefs about the PQ in light of this evaluation and your work above
In this last stage, we are hoping to understand how your initial beliefs about the pivotal questions have changed, and why. You are also welcome to submit any feedback you may have about this pivotal questions process. The final survey form is embedded below, or you can access it via . Thank you for your hard work!
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.