Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying <scp>flood‐related</scp> adaptive behaviors in the province of Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given that flooding episodes are occurring at a greater rate due to climate change, individuals must adopt certain adaptation behaviors to prevent or mitigate the anticipated or negative impact of such events. However, few studies have assessed if and how households and individuals have actually taken action in this regard. Because some individual beliefs can be linked to facilitating factors and barriers to action, a better understanding of the adoption of adaptive behaviors requires a combined analysis of individual psychosocial factors. The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the reasons underlying the adoption of behaviors related to structural adaptation to flooding by people living in or near flood‐prone areas in the Province of Québec (Canada). Results of a series of structural equation modeling showed that behavioral, normative and control beliefs were all significant predictors of the respondents' intention to adopt structural flood protective behaviors, with normative beliefs being the strongest. By identifying the best psychosocial predictors of the adoption of such behaviors, the results of this study provide valuable insights regarding the most effective factors to be used in public health messages to promote the adoption of behaviors related to structural adaptation to flooding.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".