MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521459088 · doi:10.1177/0013916516664382

Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who Is Susceptible to the Framing of Climate Change?

2016· article· en· W2521459088 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFraming (construction)Climate changeGlobal warmingFraming effectPoliticsSocial psychologyEmotivePolitical sciencePsychologySociologyGeographyPersuasionEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The terms global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably, but recent research finds “global warming” has become more emotive and more polarizing, resulting in less advocacy by some subpopulations. We explore the robustness of this framing effect based on the expectation that people with stronger partisan identities tend to have more deep-seated climate change beliefs. We use multiple methods and measures to study framing across a range of attitude scales designed to measure climate change beliefs, degree of knowledge about climate change, and intentions to take corrective actions. We find stronger framing effects for political Independents and those who are disengaged from climate change issues, indicating that polarization overrides framing at the extremes, and those with moderate beliefs are more susceptible to labeling and framing effects, especially when beliefs are inconsistent with one’s political identity. We conclude by urging communicators to appreciate the heterogeneity of their target audience.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.079 · 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