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
This study examines the perceived risks to forest biodiversity and perceived effectiveness of biodiversity conservation strategies among the general public. It tests the hypotheses that perceived risk to forest biodiversity is influenced by cognitive factors (value orientation and knowledge) and social-cultural factors (such as gender and environmental membership) and that risk perceptions influence other cognitive constructs such as support for natural resource policy and management. Data were collected from a sample of the general public (n= 596) in British Columbia, Canada by mail survey in 2001. Results show that insects and disease were perceived as the greatest risk. Educating the public and industry about biodiversity issues was perceived as a more effective conservation strategy than restricting human uses of the forest. Value orientation was a better predictor of perceptions of risk and perceived effectiveness of conservation strategies than knowledge indicators or social-cultural variables. Examining the indirect effects of social-cultural variables, however, revealed that value orientation may amplify the effect of these variables and suggests that alternative paths of influence should be included. Perceived risk showed an inconsistent association with perceived effectiveness of conservation strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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