MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168987783 · doi:10.1142/s146433321250010x

MAKING IT REAL: WHAT RISK MANAGERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

2012· article· en· W2168987783 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsMisrepresentationRisk managementRisk communicationPublic relationsCommunity engagementPublic engagementContaminated landSociologyBusinessKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)Political scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "decide-announce-defend" approach to decision-making offers few meaningful opportunities for engagement in decision processes and communities and individuals frequently feel isolated from decisions. Correspondingly, many practitioners believe science is misunderstood by communities and that messages on risk are susceptible to distortion or misrepresentation. Many voices have called for more inclusive approaches to the analysis and management of risk. Here, we draw on theoretical and practical insights from the fields of risk communication, community engagement and contaminated land management, to explore some of the unique issues involved in communicating risk issues to lay audiences, and to identify principles for engaging communities in contaminated land risk management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it