MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404292529 · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1496017

The influence of public environmental concern on the rural living environment in China

2024· article· en· W4404292529 on OpenAlexaff
Wenguang Zhang, Qinlei Jing, Ji Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNational Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
KeywordsChinaEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEconomic growthPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Despite China's economic growth, rural living environments have often lagged behind. While public participation is gaining importance in environmental governance, the magnitude and mechanism of its impact remain understudied. Purpose This research investigates the relationship between public environmental concerns and the rural living environment in China and explores how public concerns impact living conditions. Methodology Using panel data from 245 prefecture-level cities (2012–2021), we employed the entropy method to measure rural living environment scores and used fixed-effect models to analyze the relationship between public concern and the living environment. Results The findings demonstrate a positive relationship between strong public environmental concerns and improved rural living environments. Further analysis suggests that local government environmental attention acts as a partial mediator in this relationship. Conclusion This study reveals that public participation can influence government policies, ultimately leading to positive environmental outcomes. Promoting public participation in environmental governance is crucial for improving the rural living environment.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sustainable Food SystemsSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207