MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333978968 · doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v7i2.154

Pathways to Environmental Responsibility

2013· article· en· W2333978968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annick De Witt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityEnvironmental ethicsSociologyEthical responsibilityMeaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)InsiderValue (mathematics)Natural (archaeology)Social psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to generate understanding into the spiritual dimension of nature experience and its relationship to environmental responsibility, as reported in interviews with nature-lovers/environmentalists and spiritual practitioners in Victoria, Canada. As the interviews demonstrate, seeing nature as imbued with meaning, intrinsic value, and/or the sacred seems to engender an increased sense of environmental responsibility. Simultaneously, a natural, evolutionary, this-worldly spirituality tends to lead to a ‘kinship with all life’ ethics. The spiritual nature experience was characterized by three key themes labeled presence, interconnectedness, and selfexpansion. Many participants explained that these experiences informed their worldviews, senses of environmental responsibility, and sometimes career choices. The research thereby illuminates three pathways to a sense of environmental responsibility: profound encounters with nature, contemporary spirituality, and their convergence in spiritual nature experiences. Moreover, the results give an insider’s perspective into the worldview of contemporary nature spirituality, which is claimed to be of increasing importance for sustainable development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.014
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and CultureSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207