Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the Fukushima nuclear disaster (FND) that occurred 11 March 2011 through the lens of the systemic and complexity theory. This analysis allows the proposition of some guidelines for the development of a more preventive and ethical approach in crisis management, including changes in human resource management and training. Design/methodology/approach – Thanks to a layered analysis of the complex system that represents the FND and an actor/stake approach, this paper sheds light on the many failures that occurred on the personal, organizational, institutional, political and cultural level. Findings – This analysis highlights that, beyond the apparent simplicity of the natural trigger events, a complex network of legal, cultural and technological paradigms, as well as the defense mechanisms of personal and organizational moral disengagement, have structured the context of this crisis, allowing for an event to turn into this disaster. Practical implications – This study shows the limit of classical approach towards crisis management such as probabilistic risk assessment in terms of systemic and complexity: the assessment could be easily overcome if the mindset of the organization leaders is not already oriented towards preventive management. Originality/value – The value of this study is participating to the effort of showing the need to develop more preventive mindsets and behaviours in the global economy, dealing with worldwide and complex issues.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".