Public Attitude Towards Ecology of Visitors of Ecological Spaces and The Role of Such Spaces in The Formation of Environmentally Responsible Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\nThe main scope of the study was to identify the public attitudes of visitors of ecology- friendly spaces towards ecology and the role of such public spaces in the formation of these attitudes and environmentally oriented practices. The data collection method used was an offline questionnaire and an online survey, in which 342 people took part. For the analysis, the construction of a least squares regression model was used. The main theoretical model was the theoretical approach of humanistic realism of J.-P. Sartre and the grassroots theory of change as interpreted by Chetkovich C. A., Kunreuther F. The results show that about half of the respondents strive for an environmentally friendly lifestyle, sometimes visit organizations, but rarely support their activities financially. Just over a third have some environmental habits, but do not visit or support organizations financially, and a quarter of respondents are frequent visitors to environmental organizations and support their activities financially. It can also be concluded that respondents visit the eco-center because they try to lead an environmentally friendly lifestyle. The findings allow us to formulate a number of recommendations for city authorities in organizing an environmentally oriented policy that would take into account existing ties in the community.\n
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".