MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387771284 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287435

Exploring factors of e-waste recycling intention: The case of generation Y

2023· article· en· W4387771284 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Yaseen Bhutto, Aušra Rūtelionė, Beata Šeinauskienė, Myriam Ertz

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundLietuvos Mokslo Taryba
KeywordsWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seriousness of the e-waste crisis stems from the fact that consumers do not participate much in ensuring the proper disposal of electronic materials. In this context, millennials are the largest segment of consumers of electronic products who are not yet motivated to get sustainably rid of them. However, to inspire consumers to recycle e-waste, it is necessary to investigate consumers' behavioral intentions towards e-waste thoroughly. This study integrates the theory of planned behavior, social influence theory, and personality traits to examine how consumers gauge their choice to recycle e-waste. Data were collected from randomly surveying 300 Lithuanians through a structured questionnaire. Using the PLS-SEM approach, results show that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control significantly influence consumers' e-waste recycling intention. Regarding personality traits, only openness to experience significantly affects consumers' e-waste recycling intention. In contrast, other traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism have a non-significant influence on consumers' e-waste recycling intention. In addition, normative and informational social influence affects consumers' e-waste recycling intention. The current study advances our understanding of e-waste recycling behavior by examining how TPB, personality factors, and social influence theory influence intentions. It provides valuable insights for policymakers and marketers on understanding and encouraging the e-waste behavior of Lithuanian Y-generation consumers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207