Biospheric Values Predict Ecological Cooperation in a Commons Dilemma Scenario
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
In ecological commons dilemma research, environmental values tend to be treated as a monolith. However, environmental values vary and they do not equally predict proenvironmental behavior. In this study, we investigated the impact of three kinds of proenvironmental values (egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric) on competitive and cooperative behavior in a hypothetical ecological commons dilemma scenario. Two hundred Canadian undergraduate students completed an online survey assessing proenvironmental value orientation and commons dilemma decision-making tendencies. In line with our hypothesis, controlling for demographic characteristics (e.g., gender) and key facets of social desirability (e.g., impression management), egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values positively predicted competition, altruistic cooperation, and ecological cooperation, respectively, within the commons dilemma. Results show that to promote the sustainable consumption of shared ecological resources, it is prudent for educators, environmental managers, and policy makers to encourage the expression of biospheric values.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.062 | 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