MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606284663 · doi:10.5539/ass.v13n5p96

The Drivers of the Life Satisfaction of Pro-environment and Non-pro-environment People

2017· article· en· W2606284663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Orose Leelakulthanit

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus of controlOptimismHappinessPsychologyLife satisfactionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Happiness or life satisfaction tends to be the ultimate goal of human beings. It is the intention of this study to investigate the factors influencing the life satisfaction of pro-environment and non-pro-environment people. The data were collected from interviews with 320 adults, who were equally divided into pro-environment and non-pro-environment adults of at least 18 years of age and that had come to the randomly-selected shopping centers in Bangkok. The life satisfaction of the people, regardless of their environmentally-friendly attitude, was assumed to be driven by the personal characteristics of optimism and internal locus of control, and the domains of life of family, personal health, self-actualization, and material possessions, as well as the altruistic and biospheric values of being nature lovers. The results from the t-test suggested that pro-environment people are likely to be more satisfied with their lives than non-pro-environment people. Moreover, the multiple regression analysis indicated that the life satisfaction of the pro-environment people was positively influenced by the biospheric value of being a nature lover, self-actualization, and age, and was negatively influenced by education. The pro-environment people that were never married were more satisfied with their lives than those that were married. Finally, the life satisfaction of the non-pro-environment people was positively triggered by the personal characteristics of optimism and having an internal locus of control, as well as the domain of life of personal health and age.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207