Fighting climate change: What’s being mindful, outside and at school got to do with it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although climate change education strategies have succeeded in spreading awareness, they also create a sense of fear and urgency that not only fails to change environmentally unsustainable behavior but may increase this behavior. The failure of current strategies and the paradoxical increase of environmentally unsustainable behavior may be explained by a theory known as terror management theory. This theory posits that if people are faced with an existential crisis, like climate change, they may cling even tighter onto their current ways. A novel solution to alleviate terror management theory is inspiring and empowering people. Inspiration and empowerment will teach people to see environmentally sustainable behavior as a healthier alternative to their current ways rather than an existential crisis. Therefore, they are more likely to welcome change rather than fear it. My study aims to see if mindfulness, connection to nature, and differing undergraduate programs affects sustainable consumption behavior. These factors are thought to inspire and empower people. If these factors can affect sustainable consumption behavior, then they may inspire and empower people to fight climate change. I predict that individuals who are more mindful and connected to nature will also have more sustainable consumption behavior. Furthermore, programs that highlight environmental issues will allow students to have a better connection to nature and more sustainable consumption behavior. If there is evidence to support, my hypotheses then factors that influence sustainable consumption behavior should be taught in schools. These factors would not only increase environmental behavior but increase the student’s overall wellbeing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".