Risk, Resiliency, and Urban Governance: The Case of the 2010 Winter <scp>O</scp>lympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article prend les préparations pour les Jeux olympiques d'hiver de 2010 comme point départ d'un examen de l'idée et de la pratique de la résilience dans les domaines de la sécurité publique et de la gouvernance urbaine. Cet enthousiasme contemporain pour la résilience est généralement relié à des changements plus substantiels dans les logiques sécuritaires en réponse à une prolifération d'événements disruptifs difficiles à anticiper et aux conséquences potentiellement catastrophiques. Cependant, comment est‐il possible de planifier en vue d'un avenir inconnu et inconnaissable? Cet article décrit trois ensembles de pratiques visant à construire une résilience urbaine. Paraissant routinières et ordinaires et associées principalement au domaine de la gestion des urgences, ces pratiques illustrent néanmoins un domaine de l'action gouvernementale qui a prospéré depuis le 11 septembre 2001, mais qui a reçu peu d'attention académique et scientifique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".