Transforming Perceptions : The Role of Perspective-Taking in the Canadian Policy Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the role of empathy and perspective-taking in shaping policy support toward oil and gas pipelines in Canada, with an applicable focus on the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX) project. Conducted through an online survey experiment with 442 participants, the study examines the influence of a perspective-taking exercise on policy support and political behaviour. By prompting participants to imagine themselves in the situation of those directly impacted by Canadian pipeline policies, this research aims to assess the potential of empathy, induced through perspective-taking, to foster a more inclusive approach to policy evaluation. The results indicate that perspective-taking significantly decreased the likelihood of support for pipeline policies. However, it did not have a significant effect on participants' willingness to engage in actions like signing a petition against the TMX expansion to the Canadian government. The study further revealed that participants who underwent the perspective-taking exercise reported higher levels of emotional intensity (concern, sympathy, anger, activism), which in turn, significantly correlated with a decrease in policy support. In this context, emotional response is understood as an important mechanism between perspective-taking and changes in policy support, suggesting a need for further research on their impact on policy attitudes and behaviors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".