Environmental risk perception from visual cues: the psychophysics of tornado risk perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lay judgments of environmental risks are central to both immediate decisions (e.g., taking shelter from a storm) and long-term ones (e.g., building in locations subject to storm surges). Using methods from quantitative psychology, we provide a general approach to studying lay perceptions of environmental risks. As a first application of these methods, we investigate a setting where lay decisions have not taken full advantage of advances in natural science understanding: tornado forecasts in the US and Canada. Because official forecasts are imperfect, members of the public must often evaluate the risks on their own, by checking environmental cues (such as cloud formations) before deciding whether to take protective action. We study lay perceptions of cloud formations, demonstrating an approach that could be applied to other environmental judgments. We use signal detection theory to analyse how well people can distinguish tornadic from non-tornadic clouds, and multidimensional scaling to determine how people make these judgments. We find that participants ( N = 400 recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk) have heuristics that generally serve them well, helping participants to separate tornadic from non-tornadic clouds, but which also lead them to misjudge the tornado risk of certain cloud types. The signal detection task revealed confusion regarding shelf clouds, mammatus clouds, and clouds with upper- and mid-level tornadic features, which the multidimensional scaling task suggested was the result of participants focusing on the darkness of the weather scene and the ease of discerning its features. We recommend procedures for training (e.g., for storm spotters) and communications (e.g., tornado warnings) that will reduce systematic misclassifications of tornadicity arising from observers' reliance on otherwise useful heuristics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.003 |
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".