Qualitative analysis of cognitive and contextual determinants of Canadians’ individual response to terrorism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to explore different aspects of individual response to terrorism in Canada and develop a descriptive model of the processes involved. A qualitative analysis was performed on transcripts of individual and group interviews held across Canada (N = 73) wherein concerns and decisions surrounding terrorism were discussed. This analysis revealed 16 emerging concepts, which were organised into six overarching themes (Threat, Uncertainty, Control, Context Issues, Psychological Response, and Behavioural Response). Psychological and behavioural responses appeared to be related, in that they shared a number of cognitive determinants. Results also pointed to the involvement of contextual factors such as timing relative to an event, type of terrorism scenario, and opinions regarding the regulation of terrorism. Behavioural responses to terrorism were discussed less frequently than psychological responses. These primarily entailed actions aimed at avoiding terrorist events, although more positive responses such as individual preparedness were also mentioned. Implications of findings for research on individual preparedness for terrorism are discussed.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".