The Relationship between Systems Thinking and the New Ecological Paradigm
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
The goal of the present research was to examine the relationship between the cognitive paradigm systems thinking and an ecologically informed worldview, specifically the New Ecological Paradigm. One hundred and fifteen psychology undergraduate students completed an online questionnaire assessing systems thinking, ecological worldview, environmental value‐orientation, connectivity to nature, and environmental behaviors. Results demonstrated that systems thinkers possess a stronger ecological worldview and sense of connectivity with nature, harbour biospheric environmental values, and engage in more pro‐environmental behaviors than those scoring low on systems thinking. Furthermore, it was found that systems thinking both uniquely predicted and was predicted by the New Ecological Paradigm. Moreover, results demonstrated that systems thinkers are better able to acknowledge ‘system membership’ and possess a greater understanding of the characteristics of complex ecological systems and their mutual influence on social‐economic domains. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.081 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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