Posters for Reusable Cup Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In response to the environmental issue of single-use cup pollution, our study investigates the influence of gain-framed messaging on the intention to use reusable cups. Research Question How do posters that highlight the environmental benefits or the financial benefits of reusable cups influence the intention to use reusable cups? Methods We designed two types of posters: one highlighting the environmental benefits ("Happy Earth") and the other emphasizing financial savings ("Saving Money") to assess their impact on individuals' intentions compared to a control condition. Utilizing the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we surveyed 258 participants from the University of British Columbia, measuring their intention to use reusable cups after exposure to one of the three poster conditions. Results Contrary to our hypothesis, the results showed no significant difference in the intention to use reusable cups between participants exposed to the "Happy Earth" and "Saving Money" posters and those in the control group. This suggests that neither environmental nor financial incentives increased the likelihood of choosing reusable cups over single-use options. Recommendations This outcome calls for a reevaluation of the strategies used to promote environmentally responsible behaviours. It also displays the need for further research to explore more effective communication and incentive mechanisms to encourage the use of reusable cups. Future research should investigate the effects of different reminder formats (e.g., digital vs. physical) and the potential impact of social norms on encouraging reusable cup use. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.006 |
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".