MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387540105 · doi:10.24043/001c.88472

‘Burn Like Hot Stones’: Children’s Perceptions of Environmental Change in Samoa

2023· article· en· W4387540105 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anita Latai Niusulu, Tautalaaso Taulealo, John Connell

Bibliographic record

VenueIsland Studies Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSamoanClimate changePerceptionGeographyActive listeningPsychological resiliencePsychologySocioeconomicsSociologySocial psychologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of children in the small Pacific Island state of Samoa was undertaken through focus groups and drawings. This primary study of children of different ages demonstrated that children were aware of local environmental changes including those triggered by climate change. The majority of Samoan children of both genders were aware of the multiple dimensions of climate change affecting Samoa, namely rising temperatures, heavier rainfall, stronger winds, cyclones, and how these affected to varying degrees different parts of Samoa. Sea level rise was perceived to be a feature of future, rather than, current climate change. Gender variations reflected domestic activities of children, while village location influenced observations and perceptions of change. Their knowledge was informed by their experiences of recent events triggered by climate change and tectonic activities, attending school, as well as by listening to various media sources such as television and radio, and to family members. Younger children, aged 6-9 years, had a basic understanding of climate change. Older children, aged 10-15 years, were able to conceptualize future changes, and exhibited a degree of forward thinking that suggested potential resilience in the face of change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsland Studies JournalSame topicClimate Change, Adaptation, MigrationFrench-language works237,207