MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071766253 · doi:10.1109/iccie.2009.5223972

Factors contributing in the formation of consumers' environmental consciousness and shaping green purchasing decisions

2009· article· en· W2071766253 on OpenAlexaff
Souad H’Mida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingEnvironmental consciousnessMarketingProduct (mathematics)DemographicsConsciousnessBusinessSupply chainConceptual modelConsumer behaviourGreen marketingEnvironmental economicsEconomicsPsychologySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that the most powerful actors in the supply chain are clients. If the market stops buying products because of a weak environmental performance, the rest of the supply chain is left with one option: address the problem and increase the perceived environmental performance of their products. Great deal of studies in many fields (psychology, sociology, environmental studies, marketing, etc.) and for many decades had suggested that environmental consciousness (EC) plays an important role in the consumers' green purchasing decision. In this paper we develop a conceptual model where environmental consciousness, willingness to pay extra money, and perceived environmental performance of the product and the company impact directly and indirectly green purchasing decisions. It is also proposed that two categories of factors determine the level of consumers' environmental consciousness (CEC). The first category pertains to the consumers and is called intrinsic factors such as: demographics and psychological variables. Extrinsic factors like family, media and culture constitute the second category proposed in this paper. Several research propositions 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207