MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767111187 · doi:10.14288/1.0357253

Towards a new economic paradigm : exploring mental models and message framing effects about ecological economics

2017· article· en· W2767111187 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Ecological economicsEcologySociologyPsychologyEconomicsGeographySustainabilityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition to a sustainable economic paradigm may be one of the most important issues of our times. This study contributes to the effective communication of ecological economics, by: 1) identifying mental models on people’s perceptions about economic growth and the environment, 2) exploring the prevalence of expansionist and ecological attitudes, and segmenting the audience based on these attitudes, and 3) exploring the effects of different messages (about the transition to economies not centered on growth) on people’s thoughts, emotions and attitudes. Sixty interviews and 1,250 online surveys were carried out in British Columbia and Canada, respectively. Data were analysed with NVivo 10, IBM SPSS Statistics 23 and Latent Gold 5.1. Based on the interviews, five mental models were described. These sat in a spectrum of views anchored to an expansionist or to an ecological worldview. The most expansionist views (Cluster A) expressed great faith in indefinite economic growth and human ingenuity. The most ecological perspectives (Cluster E) acknowledged limits to economic growth, recognized the ecological crisis and expressed techno-skepticism. The other perspectives were in the middle of the spectrum. Based on the surveys, three audience segments were identified. Participants in Cluster 1 (41.1%) were the most optimistic towards technology and indefinite economic growth. Members of Cluster 2 (36.3%) did not express strong opinions. Participants in Cluster 3 (22.6%) acknowledged human unsustainability, expressed higher environmental concern and did not believe in indefinite growth. Sociodemographic factors (e.g. gender, political identification) correlated with the mental models and segments. Regarding the framing experiments, the messages influenced participant’s thoughts and emotions. Environmental messages invoked more references to resources and sustainability, while well-being messages generated more comments about overconsumption and happiness. Loss-framed messages caused greater negative emotions than gain-framed messages and the environmental message focused on losses generated the least hope and the greatest fear and anger among frames. There was no evidence that attitudinal responses were influenced by the frames. Most participants agreed with moving into an economic model with reduced consumption levels. This study provides data on topics that have been little explored and offers insights about the impacts of different post-growth messages.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.214 · 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