Feeling Nature: Measuring perceptions of biophilia across global biomes using visual AI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of studies suggest that biophilia encompasses benefits resulting from human–nature interactions. However, quantifying these effects remains challenging. Since natural features vary worldwide, this study explores whether people perceive biophilia universally or if it is influenced by local or geographical conditions. To this end, we quantify, qualify, and map biophilic perceptions (BP) across terrestrial biomes. We first surveyed 400 people in eight cities to identify urban features evoking more positive feelings via Google Street View imagery. Thereafter, survey outcomes were used to calculate specific metrics (coverage, diversity, distribution, intensity, specificity) aimed at measuring BP using a machine-learning model to detect 25 visual biophilic classes (BC). We found that people yield greater benefits from eye contact with nature-based elements within the cityscape unanimously, regardless of biome or gender. We provide AI-driven measurement tools applicable to any city globally to foster understanding and the enhancement of biophilic experiences.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it