Factors Affecting Awareness of Environmental Conservation of Undergraduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to study the level of environmental conservation awareness and the relationship between factors affecting the awareness of environmental conservation of undergraduate students. To study and compare factors affecting environmental conservation awareness among undergraduate students of different genders and academic years. The sample used in the research was undergraduate students. Department of Environmental Education, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahasarakham University, 219 people from voluntary participation. The research tool was a questionnaire on factors affecting the environmental conservation awareness of undergraduate students. The statistics used in the research were frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. And hypothesis testing using One-Way ANOVA. The results of the study showed that: 1. Undergraduate students are aware of environmental conservation at a high level with a value of 3.88. When considering each item, it was found that the factor that students were most aware of in environmental conservation was the value of natural resources and the environment. Followed by knowledge of environmental conservation, awareness of environmental conservation news, environmental protection model, and participation in environmental conservation. The factor that students were least aware of in environmental conservation was participating in environmental conservation activities, respectively. All factors were related to the awareness of environmental conservation in a positive direction at statistical significance at the .05 level. 2. There was no difference between undergraduate students of different genders in their awareness of environmental conservation. There was a difference between students of different academic years and awareness of environmental conservation at statistical significance at the .05 level.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".