Exploration of youth knowledge and perceptions of individual-level climate mitigation action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current climate crisis necessitates effective mitigation action across all scales, including behaviours and lifestyle decisions at the individual level. Youth need to align lifestyle with the 2.1 tonnes of CO 2 emissions per person per year required by 2050 to prevent the worse impacts of climate change (CC), yet little is known regarding their preparedness to act nor knowledge of the efficacy of the personal actions available to them. The main objectives of this study were to determine in a representative sample of 17–18 year old Canadians ( n = 487) their: (1) beliefs around whether their activities or lifestyle choices can help to lessen CC, and (2) knowledge of the efficacy of individual-level behaviours in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GGE). Results from the online survey (Likert scale) show that youth have limited confidence in how well their schooling has prepared them for CC and mitigation. However, the majority (88%) believe that their activities and lifestyle choices can help in mitigating CC. Knowledge of the relative efficacy of GGE-reducing actions was generally poor (Wilcoxon signed rank tests and open-ended responses) with, for instance, recycling overestimated and having one fewer child underestimated, suggesting that youth are not well equipped with the requisite knowledge to maximise CC mitigation through their personal choices. Our findings inform high school curricula and CC education and policy more broadly.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".