MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292136316 · doi:10.24839/2325-7342.jn27.3.185

Well-Being and the Outdoors: An Environmentalism Study Among a Religious Student Population

2022· article· en· W4292136316 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura Pires-Gifford, Shaylee Hoffmann, Edmond Arroyo, Nathan Jones, Bethany Waite, Robert R. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenuePsi Chi Journal of Psychological Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSociety for Personality and Social PsychologySt. Francis Xavier UniversityWestern Michigan University
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)RecreationNegative correlationPopulationAnxietyMental healthPositive correlationDemographySocial psychologyClinical psychologyMedicineInternal medicineBiologyEcologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental attitudes (EAs, i.e., overall responsibility or general attitudes toward the environment), environmental behaviors (EBs, i.e., willingness to engage in or change behaviors relating to the environment), and environmental concerns (ECs, i.e., concern about environmental issues) are important variables related to outdoor recreation, health behaviors, mental health, and even religion. For the present study, we aimed to examine the relationship between these variables using an online survey of introductory-level students attending a religious university consisting primarily of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Results were then assessed using linear and stepwise regression analysis. Results indicate a significant positive correlation between EAs with diet quality (i.e., whole grains, vegetables, and fruits: p < .001) and life satisfaction (p = .02) and a negative correlation between EAs and negative affect (p < .001). EBs were correlated positively with having a high-quality diet (i.e., whole grains, vegetables, and fruits: p < .001), exercise behaviors (p = .01), life satisfaction (p = .024), and low levels of negative affect (p = .01). Interestingly, ECs were correlated with high levels of anxiety (p = .001), depressive symptoms (p = .002), perceived stress (p < .001), diet quality (i.e., whole grains: p = .02; vegetables: p = .005; fruits: p < .001), and low levels of life satisfaction (p = .011). Although EAs and EBs tended to correlate mostly with positive outcomes, ECs had several negative results implicating differences between EAs, EBs, and ECs. Thus, religious students were more willing and likely to engage in pro-EBs than previous studies have suggested.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.389 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsi Chi Journal of Psychological ResearchSame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207