A Multi‐Method, Multi‐Hazard Approach to Explore the Uniqueness of Terrorism Risk Perceptions and Worry<sup>1</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing ways to manage terrorism effectively requires a better understanding of how the public perceives this threat. In the present study, Canadians' perceptions of terrorism risk and 4 other hazards were assessed using a word‐association technique and rating scales reflecting key cognitive dimensions of risk (threat, uncertainty, control) and worry reactions. Data were collected in a national telephone survey. Canadians perceived terrorism as posing a lower threat, as more uncertain, and as less controllable, compared to the other hazards. Positive associations of perceived threat and of perceived uncertainty with worry about terrorism were observed. However, perceived control was unexpectedly positively associated with worry about terrorism. The findings also suggest that additional social contextual factors should be examined in future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it