The Problem of Overpopulation: Proenvironmental Concerns and Behavior Predict Reproductive Attitudes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human overpopulation continues to be a pressing problem for the health and viability of the environment, which impacts the survival and well-being of human populations. Limiting the number of offspring one produces or deciding to remain child-free may be viewed as a proenvironmental behavior (PEB) that can significantly reduce one's carbon footprint. Nonetheless, few researchers have examined the relations between environmental concerns, reported PEB, and reproductive attitudes. The goal of the current study was to examine the above relations in a sample of 200 Canadian undergraduates. Environmental concern as part of an ecologically conscious worldview (the New Ecological Paradigm) was found to negatively predict pro-reproductive attitudes. In contrast, more self-oriented (egoistic) and human-centric (altruistic) environmental concerns positively predicted pro-reproductive attitudes. Additionally, self-reported PEB was found to negatively predict pro-reproductive attitudes. All of the above relations were found to be statistically significant while controlling for the influence of age, sex, and religious status. These findings add to a limited empirical literature on environmental concerns, PEB, and attitudes toward reproducing, which can help inform discussion regarding the environmental issues associated with human overpopulation and potential ways to mitigate these dilemmas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it