MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613103543 · doi:10.1177/2158244017706712

Promoting Resilience Using an Asset-Based Approach to Business Continuity Planning

2017· article· en· W2613103543 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Asset (computer security)BusinessBusiness continuityProcess managementComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Computer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Essential service organizations fulfill critical roles in maintaining public health during a disaster; therefore, business continuity planning is paramount to ensure continued functioning of core operations during a disruption. Business continuity planning is typically oriented around a predict and prevent approach. Asset-mapping activities have the potential to balance the predominantly risk-based approach by focusing on strengths and capability already present within organizations. The purpose of this study is to identify a suite of organizational-level assets that support resilience, and to contribute to the empirical evidence base for business continuity planning. Two focus group consultations with essential service organization representatives ( n = 22) were held in Ottawa, Canada, in March and April 2014, using the Structured Interview Matrix facilitation format. Inductive analysis was used to identify eight emergent themes that highlight the importance of organizational-level assets and their contribution to adaptive capacity. Leadership and culture in adopting and promoting preparedness strategies were predominant themes, as well as the importance of communication and connectedness across micro, meso, and macro levels. A suite of 25 assets were identified and grouped into seven categories: (a) awareness, (b) human resources, (c) information and communication, (d) leadership and culture, (e) operational infrastructure, (f) physical resources, and (g) social capital. This evidence base can be used as a template to guide asset-mapping activities, and support organizations engaging in business continuity planning.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.321 · 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