MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962732196 · doi:10.3390/su13073655

Connectedness to Nature and Pro-Environmental Behaviour from Early Adolescence to Adulthood: A Comparison of Urban and Rural Canada

2021· article· en· W2962732196 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel John Anderson, Tobias Krettenauer

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSocial connectednessPsychologyContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has demonstrated that emotional connectedness to nature is among the strongest predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. This study investigated the influence of age, gender and living context on emotional connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour in a Canadian sample. Study participants completed an environmental survey, which assessed demographic data as well as levels of emotional connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour. The study contained 1251 participants equally divided across gender, sampled from four different age groups in rural versus urban living contexts throughout Canada. Study results revealed that emotional connectedness to nature was the strongest predictor of pro-environmental behaviour in comparison to the other factors. It was found that adults displayed significantly higher levels of emotional connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour in comparison to adolescents, and that females displayed higher levels of both emotional connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour in comparison to males. Moreover, urban and rural participants significantly differed in their levels of pro-environmental behaviour, but not in their levels of emotional connectedness to nature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations92
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207