The differences in environmental psychology within China elucidated by experts from both natural and social scientists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study contributes to the empirical research on personal values theory within organizational settings. Through a case study of a group of scientists from China&rsquo;s national research institution of agricultural sciences, this research examines the association between individuals&rsquo; value orientations of egoism, altruism, and the biosphere and their disciplinary backgrounds. According to the results of a questionnaire-based survey conducted among 678 scientists working within the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), this study reveals a strong awareness of and concern for social values related to sustainability. It also shows that disciplinary background impacts individuals&rsquo; value orientation. Compared to natural scientists, social scientists at CAAS demonstrate a lower level of value orientation towards altruism and biosphere. The findings advocate moving away from simplistic messages that aim to promote employees&rsquo; pro-environmental behavior or from studies that focus solely on a narrow range of experiential factors. It concludes by emphasizing that sustainability transition efforts can promote the corporate greening process through a variety of managerial measures.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".