MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909644859 · doi:10.1177/0743915618810448

The Ecological Impact of Anticonsumption Lifestyles and Environmental Concern

2018· article· en· W2909644859 on OpenAlexaff
Maren Ingrid Kropfeld, Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno, Danilo C. Dantas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Policy & Marketing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrugalitySimplicityConsumption (sociology)SustainabilityEnvironmental impact assessmentNatural resource economicsSustainable developmentBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental economicsEconomicsPublic economicsEcologySociologyBiologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsustainable consumption is an important cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment. The authors compare the ecological impact of anticonsumption lifestyles and environmental concern. Findings indicate that high scores on anticonsumption lifestyles (voluntary simplicity, frugality, and tightwadism) and environmental concern are associated with lower ecological impact. More precisely, the findings show that these lifestyles are not associated with a reduction in consumption, as their stereotypes would imply. Voluntary simplicity (β = −.286) and tightwadism (β = −.216) show a stronger association with lower ecological impact (i.e., are less harmful to the environment) than environmental concern (β = −.190), whereas frugality (β = −.089) is not associated with reduced impact after demographic variables were controlled for. The findings pertaining to voluntary simplicity and tightwadism suggest that resisting consumption is an alternative path toward more sustainable consumption. Public policy makers and marketers can build on these findings and include reduced consumption and sufficiency in their sustainability strategies.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations104
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Policy & MarketingSame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207