MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of environmentally responsible behaviours for greenhouse gas reduction

2009· article· en· W2015712108 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anh‐Thu Ngo, Gale E. West, Peter Calkins

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaBIOCAP Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasProbit modelConsumption (sociology)Ordinary least squaresDemographicsProbitSample (material)Ordered probitAgricultural economicsBusinessEconomicsEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsSocioeconomicsEconometricsSociologyDemographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canadian household consumption and driving behaviours are responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced across Canada. This paper examines and characterizes two sets of consumer behaviours, indoor GHG reduction behaviours and automobile GHG emissions, using data from a 2006 telephone survey of a representative random sample of 1002 Canadian households with cars. Two statistical models are used to analyse the impact of four groups of variables (environmental attitudes, policy opinions, automobile‐related indices and socio‐demographics) on GHG reduction at the household level. Results were obtained using ordered probit and Ordinary Least Squares regressions. Indoor GHG reduction behaviours were not correlated with automobile GHG emissions. Dominant factors increasing consumer GHG reduction behaviours both indoors and on the road were sense of personal responsibility and previous environmental activism. Canadians who least actively participate in GHG reduction activities were more likely to be living in the Prairie provinces and to be male.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Consumer StudiesSame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207