Risk Communication and the Disclosure Dilemma: The Case of Ottawa's Endoscopy Infection 'Scare'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, Ottawa Public Health announced that a non-hospital medical clinic had failed to follow proper infection control measures over a period of 10 years, resulting in the potential exposure of several thousand patients to Hepatitis and HIV. This paper discusses the health department's risk communication strategy, in particular its decision to delay the disclosure of information to the public and the reactions this provoked. The case study provides an opportunity to revisit several key themes: the role news media play in framing public health risk events; the ethical obligations that health communicators have in times of health risk or crisis; the practical limitations that often impose themselves in these circumstances; and how changes in media technology are transforming the landscape for risk communication today and the implications of these changes in the future. ©Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| 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".