MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effectiveness of Models and Prompts on Waste Diversion: A Field Experiment on Composting by Cafeteria Patrons

2012· article· en· W2104874330 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCafeteriaCompostNormativePsychologySocial psychologyIdeal (ethics)Applied psychologyWaste managementEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated whether or not visual prompts and human models influence compost‐supportive behavior by individuals in a cafeteria setting. Waste disposal behavior of cafeteria patrons was observed ( N = 1,060) after the introduction of (1) pro‐composting signs, and (2) models who demonstrated appropriate composting behavior. Ideal composting significantly increased relative to the baseline with the introduction of the signs (from 12.5% to 20.5%). A further increase (to 42%) was observed when two (but not one) individuals modeled the behavior, and this increase was sustained even after the models were removed. Informational and normative influences may explain the increase in composting. This study further supports the use of prompts and models as a strategy for encouraging pro‐environmental behaviors.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.300 · 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