Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to promote more pro-environmental behavior, it is important to understand its underlying attitudinal factors. In this study, we analyzed university students' understanding of environmental problems by administering the Japanese version of the Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI-J). It considers 28 environmental problems and 9 appraisal scales. All the scales showed high reliability. A factor analysis revealed three independent factors, representing the EAI's original three scales (threats to self, threats to the environment, and personal control in the face of environmental problems). The EAI has excellent factorial validity. Multiple regression analysis revealed a fourth scale, altering lifestyle, that measures willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. This scale was successfully predicted from the threat to environment and personal control scales. We applied factor analysis to the original three scales separately, and examined their sub-structures. Two common factors appeared: global change and natural disasters. In addition, daily-life pollution appeared as a third unique factor of the personal control scale. Enhancing the sense of personal control to cope with environmental problems and deepening the awareness of lifestyle change were discussed as important environmental education issues.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".