MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088766009 · doi:10.1177/00139160121973205

Contextual Effects on Environmental Attitudes and Behavior

2001· article· en· W2088766009 on OpenAlexaff
Donald E. Blake

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Sample (material)Resource (disambiguation)Collective actionPerceptionPopulationEnvironmental changeEnvironmental degradationSocial psychologyPsychologyEnvironmental resource managementPoliticsPolitical scienceEconomicsEcologySociologyClimate changeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from a random sample survey of the population of British Columbia, this article addresses an anomaly in the literature on environmental concern and environmental action: the limited impact of self-interest, in the sense of behavior based on a personal threat from environmental problems, on the likelihood of environmental action. The issue is examined using a regression model that includes contextual effects and measures of political attitudes and environmental knowledge as determinants of individual action in support of environmental causes and collective action directed at halting or reversing environmental degradation. The analysis demonstrates that spatial variation in the nature of environmental problems has a significant effect on perceptions and behavior. Whereas protest behavior is more likely in areas dominated by resource extraction, willingness to incur economic costs in the interest of environmental protection is lower.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations157
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207