MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405232721 · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-162

Understanding climate change conspiracy beliefs: A comparative outlook

2024· article· en· W4405232721 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Stockemer, Jean‐Nicolas Bordeleau

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaKonrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
KeywordsDistrustIdeologyHoaxClimate changePoliticsPolitical scienceEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are climate change conspiracy theories widespread across the world, or do we find climate change conspiracy beliefs (CBs) more so in some countries than in others? This research note explores the prevalence of CBs that identify climate change as a hoax across eight geographically and culturally diverse countries. Using original data, we found that climate change CBs are prevalent around the world, with some variations across countries. Our results indicate that political ideology, populist attitudes, age, and distrust of scientists primarily explain climate change conspiracy beliefs. We found cross-national heterogeneity in the importance of age and political ideology as determinants of such beliefs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.024

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.067 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Kennedy School Misinformation ReviewSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207