MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589787807 · doi:10.3390/recycling2010005

Using Pro-Environmental Information to Modify Conservation Behavior: Paper Recycling and Reuse

2017· article· en· W2589787807 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

VenueRecycling · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsReuseSignageEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental policyBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsAdvertisingWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cases where market policy instruments (e.g., taxes and quotas) are impractical tools to induce conservation behavior, information campaigns may be a valuable option. We use a difference-in-differences strategy to estimate the effectiveness a signage campaign for inducing paper recycling and reuse behavior in computer labs. We find that the implementation of signage with pro-environment appeals increases the probability of conservation behavior (i.e., recycling or reuse) by approximately 13%, despite the fact that pre-treatment levels of paper recycling and reuse were already at approximately 85%. Our results suggest that pro-environment campaigns can be an effective conservation tool and may be an important policy instrument for policy makers to consider.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.056 · 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