Hazard and vulnerability assessment and adaptive planning: mutual and multilateral community–researcher communication, Arctic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Communities in Arctic Canada are faced with natural geological and environmental hazards. Successful adaptation requires assessment of hazards from a physical science perspective, and appropriate communication with the communities. Transforming a hazard assessment exercise into an effective plan for adaptation requires an intimate cultural understanding. Hazard assessment involving substantial input from all research, administrative, socio-economic and cultural communities will lead to more appropriate and valuable analyses of risk, sensitivity and vulnerability. Residents and communities can contribute greatly to the identification and assessment of natural hazards. Community-driven communication is essential for meaningful risk analysis, adaptive planning and vulnerability assessment. Developing relationships with local media can be extremely beneficial. Using the practices of participatory community planning allows local environmental changes to be assessed and responded to by the people affected. Establishing effective working partnerships is essential for a true vulnerability assessment. The particularly sensitive nature of hazard assessments indicating increasing risk and vulnerability, and the continuing socio-economic changes in some communities, in the work described here, required consideration of the most appropriate methods of communication for each instance. The relationships that have emerged through the course of work in the communities have differed markedly from those originally envisioned, and also exhibit significant differences between communities.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".