Comparación transcultural de la percepción de riesgo en diferentes grupos sociales y culturales: aportes de la evaluación psicológica a la psicología ambiental Cross-cultural comparison of risk perceptions in different social and cultural groups: psychological assessment contributions to environmental psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la percepción de riesgo en cuanto a la magnitud y a la aceptabilidad de los riesgos a los cuales se encuentran expuestas las personas; determinar la validez de constructo de la versión adaptada a nuestro medio del Cuestionario de Percepción de Riesgo (Rohrmann, 2005) a partir de un estudio factorial de las cuatro escalas utilizadas en este estudio, y comparar la percepción de riesgo a través de diferentes culturas. Se replicó la investigación transcultural del Dr. Rohrmann, seleccionando estudiantes de Psicología, Geografía, Ciencias Ambientales, Ingeniería y Organizaciones Feministas, a in de comparar con los datos obtenidos en otras investigaciones, en 3 países occidentales y 3 países orientales incluyendo a Australia, Canadá, Alemania, China, Japón y Singapur. Los resultados obtenidos en nuestro medio demuestran la inluencia considerable de los aspectos psicológicos en la percepción de riesgo y en la determinación de las evaluaciones según país y grupo social y cultural. Carecemos aún de investigaciones que permitan comparar estos datos con otros países de Latinoamérica. The aim of this study is to analyze perception of risk regarding the magnitude and the acceptability of risks to which individuals are exposed, to demostrate the construct validity of Risk Perception Questionnaire (Rohrmann, 2005) adapted version for Argentina considering FA for four subscales and to compare risk judgments across cultural contexts. Research has been replicated in order to compare data collected in 3 'western' and 3 'eastern' countries, including Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, and Singapore; and students were selected from Psychology, Geography, Environmental, Engineering and Feminist. The Argentinian results-like previous indings from other countries-demonstrate the considerable inluence of psychological aspects on judging risks and the societal and cultural determination of risk evaluations according to country. There is a considerable lack of risk perception studies to compare these indings with any Latin American country.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".