MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152196558 · doi:10.1177/00139160021972676

A Multinational Perspective on the Relation between Judeo-Christian Religious Beliefs and Attitudes of Environmental Concern

2000· article· en· W2152196558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Wesley Schultz, Lynnette Zelezny, Nancy J. Dalrymple

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropocentrismPerspective (graphical)Multinational corporationRelation (database)PsychologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on a recent multinational survey of environmental attitudes and behaviors, we examined the relation between religious beliefs and environmental concern. Measures included the revised New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), Thompson and Barton’s ecocentrism and anthropocentrism scales, a 12-item proenvironmental behavior scale, a measure of biblical literalism, and a measure of religious importance. Data are reported from 2,160 university students from Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, the United States, and Venezuela. The data revealed a consistent pattern across countries. Respondents who expressed more literal beliefs in the Bible scored significantly lower on the NEP, lower on ecocentric environmental concerns, and higher on anthropocentric environmental concerns. No significant relation was found between biblical literalism and self-reported proenvironmental behavior.

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations305
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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