MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936389629 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-12071

Effects of Nature Exposure and Nature Relatedness On Goals: Implications For Materialism

2017· dissertation· en· W2936389629 on OpenAlexaff
Raelyne L. Dopko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterialismHappinessFeelingSocial psychologyMoodPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyCommunicationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materialism, the high importance individuals assign to owning material items, is generally associated with less human happiness and fewer sustainable behaviours.In this thesis, I proposed nature contact as a novel solution for decreasing materialistic aspirations, increasing mood, and fostering environmental concern.I used self-determination theory to propose that nature contact may orient people towards pro-social goals (e.g., intrinsic goals, environmental concern) while shifting people away from extrinsic goals (e.g., materialism).I proposed that people need to lower materialistic aspirations and higher intrinsic aspirations (Pilot Study, Study 1 and Study 3).This supports the idea that increasing people's connection to nature may be a potential strategy or intervention for decreasing materialistic aspirations.To examine this possibility, researchers may wish to use different types of nature exposure and further document which types of nature exposure lead to which specific benefits.Overall, these results highlight the need for future research to further examine how environmental and positive psychology can more reliably assess this relationship by using more immersive nature manipulations or a variety of nature manipulations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207