MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386917075

Consommation responsable et perception de produits : au-delà de l’environnement

2010· article· fr· W4386917075 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne Marchand

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversitySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNottingham Trent University
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente et discute certains résultats spécifiques provenant d’une étude plus large qui visait à explorer le rapport qu’entretiennent les consommateurs responsables aux biens de consommation. Sur la base de données empiriques collectées auprès de citoyens qui se sont tournés vers des modes de consommation à moindres impacts écologiques, il a été remarqué que l’adoption d’habitudes de « consommation durable » n’est pas seulement motivée par des considérations altruistes et environnementales, mais également par des bénéfices personnels et/ou familiaux perçus, incluant une augmentation attendue du bien-être. Ces dernières motivations, ainsi que la manière avec laquelle elles s’expriment à travers des préférences pour certaines caractéristiques que présentent des produits de consommation, sont exposées. Tout en reconnaissant les dangers que peuvent représenter la définition et la valorisation d’une approche de la consommation responsable qui se limite aux profits et intérêts individuels, l'article suggère que la compréhension de tels motifs, et leurs implications pour la manière dont les produits et services sont conçus et positionnés, demande à être davantage explorés et compris en vue de, potentiellement, supporter un avenir davantage durable.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)Same topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207