Humans and nature : public visions on their interrelationship
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
This thesis empirically studies what lay people living in Western countries regard the appropriate way to relate to nature. Their environmental ethic might be in line with Mastery over nature, Stewardship of nature, Partnership with nature or Participation in nature. Not only will the ethics of the public be elicited but also the two other components of the ‘Visions of Nature’ umbrella: the image of nature (What is nature?) and the valuation of nature. Based upon interviews and surveys among the population in North Western Europe and Canada, this thesis will test whether the public distinguishes the same images of the human/nature relationship as philosophers do and to which image they adhere most. The study will then search for links between lay people’s environmental ethics and other background variables such as religion. Further, by searching for correlations between Visions of Nature and public adherence to river management, this study aims to contribute to the practice of river landscape planning. This contribution is twofold; it gives recommendations on communication and it elaborates on the possibilities of incorporating public values in one of the first stages of planning, called visioning.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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