The Process of Change Experimented by Teachers and Students when Voluntarily Trying Environmental Behaviors
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
During a training program on climate change education, teachers were invited to experiment with environmental behaviors in their personal lives. They then created their own climate change education model, with which they experimented in their classroom. Through teachers' and students' work, individual interviews, and questionnaires, researchers monitored the behavioral change process of 25 teachers and of 75 students who participated in the pedagogical activities planned by the teachers. Motivational factors included a profound attachment to the natural environment and a desire to help the Earth. Facilitating factors included participation in a support group, the simplicity of chosen actions, and encouragement from family members. Limiting factors included time, the lack of awareness in one's surroundings, forgetfulness, and fatigue. The theory put forward by CitationProchaska, Norcross, and DiClemente (2002) was used to interpret the results and propose pedagogical interventions in climate change education. Notes 1The Ecosage Circle project was made possible by grants from Environment Canada, and the New Brunswick Environmental Trust Fund. To learn more about the Ecosage Circle project, visit the following website: www.umoncton.ca/littoral-vie
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it