Analyzing Urban Communities Level of Environmental Awareness for a Future Sustainable Use of Plastic Packaging
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
For the last decades, problems have occur due to the increased plastic used as packaging for various products.Plastic may be considered profitable for the company for their products because it is easy to use and has a low price which economically benefical for the company.However, problems may arise due to its nature of being hard to break, the material making it difficult to decompose, causing piles of plastic waste.Therefore, this research aims to determine the level of environmental awareness in individuals.We aim from the humanperspective since human are the subject of plastic users in daily life, as we access the level of knowledge, attitude, and behavior towards plastic use.We used a quantitative research method and distributed questionnaires to 268 respondents.Distributed frequency analysis was done using SPSS, and we categorized the total scores of each variable into two groups.Then, we composite the three variables to determine the level of environmental awareness.Results show that based on respondent's knowledge, attitude, and behavior towards plastic use, the majority of respondents, about 55.6% have good environmental awareness, whereas the other 44.4% have poor environmental awareness.This result indicates that the respondents already have formed their awareness, which may be beneficial in forming their pro-environmental behavior in future daily life, therefor aiming for future sustainable behavior of plastic use, especially plastic for packaging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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