MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244866202 · doi:10.24124/2015/bpgub1044

Health promotion & environmental activism: Haida Gwaii, Bc, the Northern Gateway Project, and a model of collective interest.

2015· dissertation· en· W4244866202 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Madrid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Political scienceHealth promotionGeographyArchaeologyLawHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study inductively explores the theoretical connections between health promotion and environmental activism. A conceptual framework was developed that illustrates the theoretical connections between these concepts. Deductively, this study responds to a call for quantitative and case study research on the social dimensions of environmental activism and health. An empirical model of collective interest (Cl), which has been used to investigate protest behaviours, was adapted to emphasize a health promotion focus and the case study context: the Canadian archipelago, Haida Gwaii, BC, and its communities' opposition towards a controversial petrochemical project, the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. The adapted version of the Cl model was used to statistically analyse survey data using logistic regression techniques that suggested predictors o f activism in this context. Together, the conceptual framework and the amended Cl model were integrated into an analytical framework to address the research questions and implications for health promotion practice and policy. 4.5.1 In s t r u m e n t d e s ig n 4 .5 .2 P e r m is s i o n s a n d p r o t o c o l s 4 .5 .3 Sa m p l in g a n d d is t r ib u t io n 4.6 Q u a n t it a t iv e D a t a An a l y s e s M e t h o d s 4.7 Su p p l e m e n t a r y Q u a l it a t iv e D a t a : F ie l d n o t e s , f e e d b a c k , a n d c o m m e n t s 4.7.1 R e s e a r c h e r F ie l d n o t e s 4 .7 .2 Su r v e y f e e d b a c k a n d c o m m e n t s 4.8 Su m m a r y CHAPTER 5: RESULTS__________________________________________________________

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207