Investigating the attitude-behavior gap in adolescent plastic consumption.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mass production of plastic products began in the 1950s, it has been estimated that more than 6.9 billion metric tonnes of produced plastic have ended up in landfills and damaged ecosystems (Walker, 2021). Though there has been an increase in research surrounding the Green Gap - the difference between an individual’s the environmental values and their actual environmental behaviour - most studies ignore which attitudes and behaviours cause a decrease in plastic usage and instead focus on which behaviours and attitudes lead to the proper recycling of plastic products. Though there is an overlap between the environmental values that cause the proper recycling of plastic products and those that lead to a decrease in plastic usage, they are not the same and the conclusions drawn from one aspect of the Green Gap cannot be applied entirely to another (Barr, 2006). Additionally, such studies focus on adult participants, and neglect adolescents. However, Baludnė et al. (2020) assert that understanding and researching the environmental values of adolescents, or society’s future generation of consumers, is becoming increasingly important as we face a multitude of environmental issues such as climate change and environmental degradation. As a result, the present study intends to research the attitude-behaviour gap of plastic consumption among Canadian adolescents through a mixed-method approach. The study surveyed 41 participants to determine which social and familial factors most influence this attitude-behaviour gap. The results of this study indicate that there is an attitude-behaviour gap in adolescent plastic consumption and that the environmental values of an adolescent are more developed by the environmental values of their family members, causing social factors (such as the presence of peers) to act as situational factors to their attitude- behaviour gap.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".