MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890331277 · doi:10.1177/0013916518799821

The Relationship Between Dialectical Beliefs and Proenvironmental Behaviors

2018· article· en· W2890331277 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDialecticPsychologySocial psychologyContradictionDialectical behavior therapyEpistemologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dialectical beliefs emphasize constant change, tolerance of contradiction, and holistic perception. This research examined the relationship between dialectical beliefs and proenvironmental behaviors. Study 1a showed that stronger dialectical beliefs were associated with fewer proenvironmental behaviors among Chinese participants; this result was replicated in Study 1b. To examine the negative relationship between dialectical beliefs and proenvironmental behaviors across cultures, Study 2 recruited both native Chinese and European Americans and replicated the results conceptually by measuring proenvironmental behaviors in a hypothetical shopping scenario. Study 3 provided further generally supportive evidence by considering the influence of both dialectical beliefs and interdependent self-construal on proenvironmental behaviors between native Chinese and European Canadians. Finally, a meta-analysis of the obtained results revealed a weak but significant negative association between dialectical beliefs and proenvironmental behaviors. Theoretical implications for cross-cultural environmental research and practical implications for proenvironmental campaigns were discussed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.255 · 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