{"id":"W2051194883","doi":"10.1289/ehp.7655","title":"Framing Scientific Analyses for Risk Management of Environmental Hazards by Communities: Case Studies with Seafood Safety Issues","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Environmental Health Perspectives","topic":"Risk Perception and Management","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":22,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Science Foundation","keywords":"Framing (construction); Deliberation; Stakeholder; Public relations; Risk management; Political science; Sociology; Environmental planning; Environmental resource management; Business; Engineering; Geography; Politics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04900005,0.00126438,0.0009958384,0.004142158,0.03078475,0.007345976,0.005067674,0.009676661,0.00295446],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05582535,0.0009975276,0.001539803,0.005589024,0.01466924,0.008005629,0.0134133,0.005641229,0.0004063383],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008971479,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006952159,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01372185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03214443,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9311988,0.0615107,0.0009906212,0.0009512475,0.002485818,0.002862862],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9138741,0.07398117,0.003540302,0.002208438,0.003219467,0.003176472],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002140106,0.001853268,0.007091337,0.0006221785,0.00005185541,0.01832533,0.9209936,0.00195934,0.0008149304,0.0191394,0.001908826,0.02702594],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001433633,0.0006361711,0.002549465,0.0005090393,0.00006472888,0.002466722,0.9483566,0.00261068,0.001447157,0.01133235,0.029803,0.00008076177],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9564056,0.001257161,0.01320564,0.00814113,0.0001111445,0.00177462,0.00006367839,0.00003253776,0.01900843],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9663354,0.001585778,0.02724373,0.0008835483,0.00007104953,0.001541066,0.00004396382,0.00002626605,0.002269136],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9692153,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2591401,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.04878015905297534,"score_gpt":0.4129795903879214,"score_spread":0.364199431334946,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}