MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936955914 · doi:10.1089/g4h.2014.0127

Developing a Game Interface to Assess Risk Perception with Respect to Two Key Dimensions of Risk (Frequency and Severity) in Contexts Where Risks Are Elevated from Their Accepted, “Typical” Values

2015· article· en· W1936955914 on OpenAlexaffabout
William M. Goodman, Zhenfeng Ma, Angie Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueGames for Health Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRisk perceptionApplied psychologyDescriptive statisticsHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSocial psychologyPerceptionMedicineStatisticsEnvironmental healthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This four-stage study culminated in a game interface designed to calibrate people's perceptions of net risk (combining frequency and severity), in contexts where risks are elevated from their accepted, "typical" values, as when avalanche threats elevate the risks of "skiing" above levels skiers normally accept. Risk prompts are displayed dynamically, in naturalistic language, and not, for example, as static displays of dollar amounts or probabilities. Individual differences are measured. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Stage 1 (pilot), focus groups (n=9) piloted procedures, visual prompts, and examples of contexts where risks elevated from the "usual," for use in upcoming stages. In Stage 2 (exploratory), participants (primarily students; n=119; mean age, 20.1 years; 64 percent male) were assigned to risk contexts, answered demographic and risk-history questions, and then matched risk-description prompts to perceived "appropriate" levels along an ordinal risk scale. Descriptive measures and graphs showed response distributions; chi-squared analyses compared responses for different demographics. In Stage 3 (manipulating "cards"), participants (n=80; mean age, 37 years; 60 percent male) matched naturalistic risk prompts with ordinal risk positions. Regressions compared cards' placements with their "expected" (per exploratory Stage 2) placements. In Stage 4, the interface was coded in the Unity(®) (implemented at Business and IT Capstone, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada) development environment. RESULTS: In Stage 1, ambiguities in draft wordings/displays for Stage 2 were identified and corrected. Three risk contexts emerged: traffic/hidden intersection; skiing/avalanche; and swimming/drowning. In Stage 2, for traffic and skiing contexts, responses relating ordinal risk categories to realistic examples were observed to cluster around values potentially usable as markers. No associations appeared with demographic variables. In Stage 3, actual and "expected" ordinal-risk-category assignments for naturalistic risk markers were well correlated. "Approximate mappings" between markers and categories appeared stable. In Stage 4, the interface design incorporated the "approximate mappings"-yet also incorporated a "tuning phase," for measuring and recording individual differences. CONCLUSIONS: The interface can capture individual differences in risk perception on two key dimensions (frequency and severity)-viewed in dynamic, naturalistic scenarios, where risk levels are increased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGames for Health JournalSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207