Kerry NiceOct 5
In which estimates of future mortality due to wildfire smoke due to climate change are made. Estimates are modelled using future CMIP6 projections, land use change, increased fires with increased PM2.5 and projected smoke mortality. Wildfire projected to increase in all regions, greatest in western US. Average smoke PM2.5 might reach 10 ug/m3 (equal to extreme levels in 2020). Historic data of low level smoke shows increase of county-level mortality rate by 1.5%. Future extreme values (>4ug/m3) could increase rates by 3.9%. Effects across following years add additional deaths. Over 2011-20, probably 41k excess deaths. Future fire increases could add 26-30k additional excess deaths. Quantifying using value of statistical life ($10 million), excess deaths cause $600 billion yearly.
170 #365papers
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09611-w
Wildfire smoke exposure and mortality burden in the US under climate change
Wildfire smoke exposure and mortality burden in the US under climate change - Nature

Wildfire activity has increased in the US and is projected to accelerate under future climate change 1–3. However, our understanding of the impacts of climate change on wildfire activity, smoke, and health outcomes remains highly uncertain, due to the difficulty of modeling the causal chain from climate to wildfire to air pollution and health. Here we quantify the mortality burden in the US due to wildfire smoke fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under climate change. We construct an ensemble of statistical and machine learning models that link climate to wildfire smoke PM2.5, and empirically estimate smoke PM2.5-mortality relationships using data on all recorded deaths in the US. We project that smoke PM2.5 could result in 71,420 excess deaths (95% CI: 34,930 - 98,430) per year by 2050 under a high warming scenario (SSP3-7.0) – a 73% increase relative to estimated 2011-2020 average annual excess deaths from smoke. Cumulative excess deaths from smoke PM2.5 could reach 1.9 million between 2026-2055. We find evidence for mortality impacts of smoke PM2.5 that last up to three years after exposure. When monetized, climate-driven smoke deaths result in economic damages that exceed existing estimates of climate-driven damages from all other causes combined in the US 4,5. Our research suggests that the health impacts of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US.

Nature
Kerry NiceSep 28, 2025
In which estimates of cigarette smuggling/tax evasion in NYC are made. They collect littered packs of cigarettes to find tax stamps (or missing stamps). All should have a NYC tax stamp, but NYC taxes are higher than neighboring states and especially southern states. Findings are that only 16% have a proper NYC tax stamp (probably decline from 33-45% in 2011 and 17-30% in 2015). 27% have Georgia, 20% from Virginia, and 27% have no stamp (i.e. illicit). Findings also show smoking rates have declined but illicit trade is still a problem.
169 #365papers
https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2025-059387
Cigarette trafficking in New York City: now and then
Kerry NiceSep 25, 2025
In which using LLMs for peer-review reveals strong in-built biases. Using GPT-4o-mini, they simulate a review process of manuscripts. Manuscripts are reviewed many times varying author gender, ethnicity, institutions, research fields, and unique names. Biases are identified where lower-prestige institutions receive lower quality assessments, higher desk and reviewer rejects. Also more review comments. Only small gender/race effects. But combination of lower-prestige institution/female also lower review scores. Black scholars at higher-prestige higher rejections than white (although not at lower-prestige). Similar sorts of effects are seen with a CV evaluation process. Looks like the promise of unbiased AI reviews doesn't stand up, and perhaps using LLMs for peer-review is not a great idea.
168 #365papers
http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15122
Prestige over merit: An adapted audit of LLM bias in peer review
Prestige over merit: An adapted audit of LLM bias in peer review

Large language models (LLMs) are playing an increasingly integral, though largely informal, role in scholarly peer review. Yet it remains unclear whether LLMs reproduce the biases observed in human decision-making. We adapt a resume-style audit to scientific publishing, developing a multi-role LLM simulation (editor/reviewer) that evaluates a representative set of high-quality manuscripts across the physical, biological, and social sciences under randomized author identities (institutional prestige, gender, race). The audit reveals a strong and consistent institutional-prestige bias: identical papers attributed to low-prestige affiliations face a significantly higher risk of rejection, despite only modest differences in LLM-assessed quality. To probe mechanisms, we generate synthetic CVs for the same author profiles; these encode large prestige-linked disparities and an inverted prestige-tenure gradient relative to national benchmarks. The results suggest that both domain norms and prestige-linked priors embedded in training data shape paper-level outcomes once identity is visible, converting affiliation into a decisive status cue.

arXiv.org
Show threadKerry NiceSep 24, 2025
Five principals: honesty (no secret AI use/no unfounded claims about capabilities), scrupulousness (only use for well-specified and validated uses, is the technology appropriate for the purpose), transparency (open source and reproducibility), independence (unbiased by AI companies agendas/conflicts of interest), responsibility (no irresponsible/harmful usage). Concluding "That work-the real work of teaching and learning-cannot be automated."
167 #365papers
https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.17065099
Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia

Under the banner of progress, products have been uncritically adopted or even imposed on users — in past centuries with tobacco and combustion engines, and in the 21st with social media. For these collective blunders, we now regret our involvement or apathy as scientists, and society struggles to put the genie back in the bottle. Currently, we are similarly entangled with artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For example, software updates are rolled out seamlessly and non-consensually, Microsoft Office is bundled with chatbots, and we, our students, and our employers have had no say, as it is not considered a valid position to reject AI technologies in our teaching and research. This is why in June 2025, we co-authored an Open Letter calling on our employers to reverse and rethink their stance on uncritically adopting AI technologies. In this position piece, we expound on why universities must take their role seriously to a) counter the technology industry's marketing, hype, and harm; and to b) safeguard higher education, critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom, and scientific integrity. We include pointers to relevant work to further inform our colleagues.  

Zenodo
Kerry NiceSep 23, 2025
In which Swedish preparation for climate adaptation in spatial planning is analysed. Climate adaptation key area for spatial planning. But practical climate proofing encounters conflicting values, interests and positions as well as limited and fragmented responses when local authorities need guidelines and recommendations. Questions of how do planners approach climate adaptation, settle and enact guidelines? Main risks addressed in Swedish policies of sea-level rise and erosion. Findings that municipalities are being preactive in settling guidelines for new development. However, guidelines are more aspirational than absolute. Applying them brings challenges (accessibility/aesthetics), requiring negotiation. And sometimes planners see no use in trying to set guidelines/prevent developments.
164 #365papers
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10113-014-0690-0
The practice of settling and enacting strategic guidelines for climate adaptation in spatial planning: lessons from ten Swedish municipalities
The practice of settling and enacting strategic guidelines for climate adaptation in spatial planning: lessons from ten Swedish municipalities - Regional Environmental Change

Spatial planning is increasingly expected to address climate change adaptation. In a Swedish context, this has meant a predominant focus on risks of flooding, erosion and sea-level rise. Gradually, regulatory mechanisms and concrete strategies are evolving to support practical mainstreaming. The aim of this paper was to analyze how frontline planners approach climate change adaptation in an urban context, emphasizing the process of settling and enacting strategic guidelines in spatial planning. The study suggests that municipalities are being preactive, i.e., preparing to act by settling guidelines rather than proactively implementing change when planning for new settlements. Further, the process of accommodating climate risks involves problems. Settling strategic guidelines and determining appropriate levels for what to adapt to are but the start of approaching climate change. Guidelines represent more of an endeavor than settling absolute limits and actually applying the guidelines involves challenges of accessibility and esthetics where the new waterfront limits meets older city structures. Further, guidelines are seen as negotiable since an overarching principle is to maintain flexibility in planning to allow for continued waterfront planning. Pursuing this path is motivated by current demand and previous urban settlement patterns. Also, as future protective measures are needed to secure existing urban areas at risk of flooding and erosion, planners see no use in preventing further waterfront development. Although settling guidelines are important in preparing to act, their practical effectiveness all fall back to how they are actually implemented in daily planning. This leads us to problematize the role of strategic guidelines to secure a climate-proof spatial planning.

SpringerLink
Show threadKerry NiceSep 23, 2025
Each mechanism, if found in policy documents, given points for implicit yes and yes, none for no. Finding Victoria articulated strong climate change mitigation goals in policy documents, mostly through emissions reductions in electricity. Limited policy around land use planning towards emissions and adaptation. Most land use policy doesn't acknowledge emissions or Paris Agreement, only for liveablity. Mitigation often conflated/interchanged with adaptation. Flood policies do not address mitigation and often ignore future risks (housing in flood areas). So, overall, little mitigation as part of current planning.
163 #365papers
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264837720325266
Urban planning policy must do more to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation actions
Show threadKerry NiceSep 22, 2025
Finding: RRP gained 0.5-2% since 1980s. Gained 0.2-0.8% from each mainstream party since 1980s. No significant effects at 95% macro-level changes. RRP gains pronounced when mainstream competes with consolidated RRPs. Accommodation increasingly ineffective over time. So, accommodating benefits established RRPs. Accommodation combined with lack of cooperation with RRPs also benefits RRPs. Finally, co-opting RRP positions (even if already policy of the mainstream) results in voter defection to the right.
162 #365papers
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847022000085/type/journal_article
Does accommodation work? Mainstream party strategies and the success of radical right parties
Does accommodation work? Mainstream party strategies and the success of radical right parties | Political Science Research and Methods | Cambridge Core

Does accommodation work? Mainstream party strategies and the success of radical right parties - Volume 11 Issue 1

Cambridge Core
Show threadKerry NiceSep 12, 2025
Geoengineering debunking: mitigation is currently scaling up, should use all the options (not if it is a bad option), won't "buy us time" (distraction and diverting time and resources to geoengineering), focus should be on emission reductions. Geoengineering gives false hope that anything but deep emission cuts are necessary, causing complacency and delays (and cover) to continue emissions while pretending to take action.
161 #365papers
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2025.1527393/full
Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects
Frontiers | Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects

Fossil-fuel burning is heating the planet with catastrophic consequences for its habitability and for the natural world on which our existence depends. Halti...

Frontiers
Kerry NiceSep 11, 2025
In which (in 2003), the case for banning car alarms in NYC is made. High impacts of noise (health, psychological, amenity). No evidence that car alarms work (95% false alarms, 1% notify the police, insurance claims show no reductions of theft, and professional car thieves undeterred). Better alternatives (brake locks, Lojack, immobilizers). NYC already bans excessive noise, should enforce the laws.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2003-friedman.pdf
160 #365papers
Alarmingly Useless: The Case for Banning Car Alarms in New York City
Kerry NiceSep 11, 2025
In which, the authors reply to a study which advocates for considering selection bias in scaling interventions and possible backfire effects for climate change deniers. Currently, 73 and 86% of US and globally believe climate change is happening. Mobilising them more effective than convincing the 14%? So, accounting for backfire is important, but they also found (in their recent study of interventions) no evidence of backfire or significant interactions with political ideology or belief. But they still agree future research should look at how to reach the dismissive and tailor interventions to subpopulations (including various SES types). Recommend a tournament approach to compare strategies.
Reply to Loh and Ren: Motivating action among climate change believers
159 #365papers
https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2515426122