MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959021699 · doi:10.7282/t3-b5xq-ga34

Household change at the food-energy-water nexus: expanding social behavioral science perspectives

2021· article· en· W6959021699 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNudge theoryPsychological interventionNexus (standard)TypologyIntervention (counseling)Consumption (sociology)PurchasingConsumer behaviourPerceptionBehavioural sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation contributes to social and behavioral science perspectives that push forward vital energy transitions in the face of climate change. In its three analytical chapters, this dissertation achieves three central objectives: 1) accumulates findings on household behavior at the food-energy-water nexus across disciplines, 2) identifies social behavioral drivers of household green technology purchase, and 3) expands the focus of consumption research beyond the individual to consider how household social dynamics shape food, energy, and water use in the home.Systematically reviewing published FEW intervention literature, Chapter 2 proposes a typology that characterizes household food, energy, and water conservation interventions as active, passive, or structural, and household-specific or non-specific, illustrating six distinct categories: information, tailored information, action, gamification, policy/price change, and material/technological provision. The review reveals four lessons for future intervention research: household non-specific information and tailored information appear to be more effective when used together, the impacts of feedback are reinforced when contact with participants is persistent, price-based interventions are often ineffective, and material/technology provision has proven very effective in a limited number of studies.Chapter 3 explores social and psychological determinants of green purchasing behavior in the US and Canada, motivated by the importance of efficient technology adoption to reach national emissions goals. This analysis establishes a causal chain from values to environmental concern to green lifestyle orientation, or the perception of importance of environmental action to one’s overall lifestyle, which predicts green purchase intentions for lightbulbs, appliances, and vehicles. Income also impacts purchase intentions in both US and Canadian samples, illustrating the pervasiveness of consumer lock-in that has potential to significantly slow green technology adoption. These findings stress the importance of exploring pro-environmental behavior not in isolation, but as interconnected with broader lifestyle circumstances. Chapter 4 tests the effects of various household social dynamics on a variety of pro-environmental actions, in response to a “unit of analysis” problem, where intervention research often targets individuals despite much resource consumption happening in the context of multi-person households. Multiple linear regression models demonstrate that positive household dynamics, including enhancing and norming behaviors, predict variance in pro-environmental actions in the household. In addition, individual and household levels of environmental awareness predict variance in both positive and negative household social dynamics. These results support qualitative research efforts that emphasize the importance of household social dynamics to resource consumption, providing avenues for future quantitative research to take a practice-based approach.Using multiple methods and drawing from a variety of theoretical bodies, this dissertation contributes to household behavior change literature that bridges disciplinary boundaries in the social sciences, providing paths forward for individual and household-level mitigation efforts.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.194 · 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