Measuring the effectiveness of using rangers to deliver a behavior change campaign on sustainable palm oil in a UK zoo
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental objective of modern zoos is promoting pro-environmental behaviors. This study experimentally assessed the contribution of zoo rangers (staff employed to engage visitors) in delivering a behavior change campaign promoting sustainable palm oil use. The campaign was delivered in a dedicated area in a walk-through animal exhibit, with rangers either "present" or "absent" in the campaign space. Questionnaires assessing awareness, knowledge, and purchasing intentions were completed by 1032 visitors. Two analyses were conducted: (1) comparing the impact of ranger presence versus absence (to assess the overall impact of having rangers present regardless of whether they talked to visitors) and (2) comparing the impact of talking to a ranger against demographically matched individuals visiting when rangers were absent (to assess the specific impact of talking to a ranger). Visitors who talked to rangers were more aware of palm oil, had more knowledge, and greater intentions of purchasing sustainable palm oil. However, as only one-quarter of visitors talked to a ranger, fewer differences were found comparing ranger presence versus absence. These findings suggest that rangers can be instrumental in communicating complex conservation issues and delivering zoo-based behavior change campaigns, but their impact is limited by low engagement rates.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it