Provincial Differences in Environmental Cognitive Alternatives and Activist Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has found that access to environmental cognitive alternatives (the ability to imagine a sustainable relationship with nature) predicts activist behaviour in a representative Canadian sample. Canada is a place with considerable variations in social norms, however, which affect the ability to engage in cognitive alternatives. Using a sample of residents of BC (N = 149), and residents of Alberta (N = 110), I compare scores on a measure of environmental cognitive alternatives between the two provinces. Additionally, I look at the relationship between these cognitive alternative scores, and scores on measures of environmental activist identification, willingness to engage in environmental activist behaviour, and willingness to engage in pro-environmental consumption. Results show that there is no significant difference in ability to engage in environmental cognitive alternatives between provinces, but that there is a strong relationship between engaging in cognitive alternatives and activist behaviours. When comparing both provinces, access to cognitive alternatives more strongly predicts activist identification and activist behaviour in Alberta than in BC. A further exploratory analysis using residents of Ontario (N = 467) and Quebec (N = 138) again found that there was a strong relationship between cognitive alternatives and activist identity and behaviour in these two provinces, but that the relationship remained strongest for residents of Alberta.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".