MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995354610 · doi:10.14288/1.0387170

Sadness : Exploring the Impact of Emotional Manipulation on Environmental Behaviours

2019· article· en· W2995354610 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sydney Lowe, Ashpreet Athwal, Agang Tema, Lillian Yue, Lissy Allan, Fang‐Wen Wu

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessPsychologySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined whether inciting sadness on UBC students increased their likelihood of being more aware of their environmental behaviours and subsequently more willing to act environmentally friendly. The study began by asking participants to fill out a survey (specific to their condition), and was finished by presenting the participants with a Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup sign-up sheet. The study contained two conditions. One condition was labelled the “emotional” condition and the other was labelled the “statistical” condition. The first hypothesis of the study was that the participants in the “emotion” condition would be more willing to engage in environmentally friendly behaviours, which was measured by examining how many boxes they checked on the environmental actions checklist. The second hypothesis was that the participants in the “emotion” condition would be more likely sign up for the Great Canadian Shoreline cleanup. The participants in this study were UBC students, who filled out the survey at the Life and the Nest Buildings on UBC campus. The results revealed that the participants in the “emotion” condition did not have an increased willingness to engage in more environmentally friendly behaviours. The results show that both stimulus have some amount of impact on the levels of concern per an individual. Additionally, the manipulation of emotion was found to increases participants levels of concern for the environment in both conditions. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→